What you think about the 30th Anniversary concerts?

Galactus123

Proud Member
What you think about the two 30th Anniversary concerts? I just watched the best quality version we have and I really enjoyed it. I hadn't watched the full thing in a long time. Michael wasn't at his best at these concerts but I think its still fun to watch. My favorite is The Jacksons part because Michael is singing live(I know they did some dubbing for the tv version). One thing I don't like is the set list when he performed solo. I'm suprised that he didn't perform Dangerous because he perfomed that a lot and I would have added Thriller and Man in the Mirror too. I don't like how they changed the song order for the tv version. It doesn't make any sense. They show Michael performing Black or White with the Billie Jean outfit before Billie Jean. I wonder why Michael used the Billie Jean outfit for it? He could have worn the white shirt again that he had when performing with his brothers earlier. They did a good job with the editing but I hate the blur effect they added on Michael's cheeks. Its very noticeable when you know about it. I wish they would have showed the band more. Greg Phillinganes is there but we never see him.

I wouldn't be against it if they released this concert on DVD/Blu-Ray at some point. They need to add some extra material like a documentary. Also behind the scenes/rehearsal footage and good quality version of TWYMMF peformance with Britney and this:

[video=youtube;e8Z7kj_PVJc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Z7kj_PVJc[/video]
 
Last edited:

mj_frenzy

Proud Member
The only good thing about these two MSG 2001 shows is the electrifying atmosphere and reactions from the audience.

Other than that, there are a lot of issues:

For instance, Michael Jackson appeared to be bored and uninterested while performing, he also lip-synced his solo numbers, and his dancing was substandard.

Also, the on stage chemistry between him and Britney Spears is non-existent (in ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’), and that performance looks like an ordeal for her (remember, at one point she backed out of her commitment to perform that song but her label forced her to perform).

In case of a DVD/Blu-Ray release, the version with Lori Werner (in ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’) is preferable because she is more playful and she interacts better with the singer.

Also, ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Thriller’ (two dark songs) could not have fitted the celebratory mood of these two nights.

You cannot include ‘Dangerous’ with the dancers who wear these red, ‘bloody’ gloves, or ‘Thriller’ with the ‘zombies’ that dance on stage.

Also, his ‘You Rock My World’ performances are both rather embarrassing: Michael Jackson struggles to come up with some new, exciting dance moves and all that he does is a total dancing rehash.
 

analogue

Proud Member
The good
1. The reunion with his brothers. Mainly because he actually sings live there. And it was great to hear some old classics he hadn't performed it a while (Can You Feel It and Shake Your Body)
2. The audience reaction and excitement
3. Michael had some nice live adlibs on a couple of his solo songs. The Way You Make Me Feel (With Lori Werner) and Billie Jean (Sep 7th) in particular had some cool adlibs.

The bad:
1. Michael looked uninterested and didn't want to be there which connects to my next point
2. I don't know what was going on health wise, but Michael IMO didn't look healthy enough to be performing. Credit to him for pushing through it, but he didn't look up to it.
3. Slash's Beat It guitar solo. Slash is a great guitarist but his solo for that song just wasn't good.
4. Nothing to do with the performances themselves but the awful editing of the Sep 7th and 10th shows. Take Billie Jean for example. On that one they edited out all the cool adlibs from the Sep 7th show but then they also edited out the better dancing from the Sep 10th show.
 

Galactus123

Proud Member
Also, the on stage chemistry between him and Britney Spears is non-existent (in ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’), and that performance looks like an ordeal for her (remember, at one point she backed out of her commitment to perform that song but her label forced her to perform).

In case of a DVD/Blu-Ray release, the version with Lori Werner (in ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’) is preferable because she is more playful and she interacts better with the singer.

Also, ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Thriller’ (two dark songs) could not have fitted the celebratory mood of these two nights.

You cannot include ‘Dangerous’ with the dancers who wear these red, ‘bloody’ gloves, or ‘Thriller’ with the ‘zombies’ that dance on stage.
That TWYMMF performance could be just extra material. They don't need to replace the solo one. I think Thriller and Dangerous could have easily been performed. Thriller isn't very dark. Beat It choreography they used is a lot darker. One of the dancers got stabbed on stage. :D
 
Last edited:

SmoothCriminal1995

Proud Member
I'm not a fan if I'm honest. I know all the terrible circumstances surrounding that point in his life but Mike was far from his best, although I haven't seen them in a long time. I remember feeling disappointed these were Michael's "last performances" (aside from a few charity performances in 2002)
I wish he would have been on the form he was in at the MJ and Friends concerts in 1999, he looked more energised and healthy there, even more than he did on parts of the HIStory Tour.

It was great see MJ reunite with his brothers and perform in front of an American audience again, they looked really excited and ready to watch him again
 

analogue

Proud Member
He looked great and in full come back mode in 1999. Probably because Invincible was supposed to be released that year, so he was in the comeback mindset. But after issues with Sony and the album getting delayed I think he just stopped caring.
 

Hess

Proud Member
If Invincible had been released in late 1999, or as the first album in the new millenium - january 1st 2000 - many things could have been different.

The entire SONY battle was a disaster - in many ways.

Had the album been released late 1999, maybe MJ would have toured before 9/11 and we would have had more concerts...
 

datblackboi08

Proud Member
When it originally aired in 2001 I was in 6th grade. At the time, I was just excited to see anything MJ on TV. This was during a time when people still had dial up internet. This was before YouTube and Limewire times. The only shows we had access to were Motown 25, The Legend Continues VHS, a TV recording of Bucharest 1992, Dangerous Short Films, History Short Films and whatever shows VH1 used to air. Anything else MJ had to be bought on Ebay. I still find MSG 2001 enjoyable because it was his last true live performance. I find it kind of annoying that it has been analyzed in so many ways for people to critic what was bad about it. Was MJ at his best? No. But the significance of the anniversary was that we did get that one last show. I appreciate it for what it was.
 

Smooth72

Proud Member
Not his best performance. I don’t really like watching it, he is off to say the least. Constantly covering his mouth so we can’t see the lip sync and he doesn’t like to make eye contact with the cameras 🎥.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
I love it. The JacksonÂ’s medley is great & Michael moves well.

I do know however it is a product of careful editing as his performance on the 7th wasnÂ’t him at his best.
 

Hess

Proud Member
I really wnjoy the Jacksons part. - even though it's dubbed it's clearly live. - So that part I enjoy a lot.

And the solo part is also OK. Had he sung that part live too it would have been truely great.
 

R1chard

Proud Member
It's clearly just TV promo. I barely know any of the guests. It's not long enough to count as a live performance. And for me, he lipsyncs too much for the event to be taken seriously. Needed a few more songs from Invincible as well.
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
I loved the energy of the concert. However, it was obvious that a lot of things were going on with Michael personally. He didnÂ’t look in the best of health; however, his stage presence was energetic. I really donÂ’t know how he did it with the way he seemed to feel. There was also the Huge Issue of Sony/Mottola sabotaging the Invincible album. That was weighing heavily on MichaelÂ’s mind and it was extremely obvious. This sabatoge of the album affected Michael physically and emotionally. It was also said that MichaelÂ’s family was pressuring him to do a project with them. Considering all of those things, I enjoyed the Anniversary concert.
 

SoCav

Proud Member
Is it just me, or is there something about these shows that makes them feel incredibly dated? I don't know if it's the guest performers or what, but they are much less timeless than his other concerts.

Overall, I am not a big fan of these shows. MJ was just not in a good place, unfortunately. With that said, it was cool to see him perform with his brothers, and the energy for their set was good. Live vocals always trump lip syncing.
 

Hess

Proud Member
I never watch the entire concert. - It is only interesting from J5-performance and MJ solo performance.

And J5 and MJ performances does not seem dated to me.
 

lubyss

Proud Member
It's clearly just TV promo. I barely know any of the guests. It's not long enough to count as a live performance. And for me, he lipsyncs too much for the event to be taken seriously. Needed a few more songs from Invincible as well.
Barely know any of the guests??? Like really? Destinys Child, Whitney houston, Liza Minelli, Gloria Gaynor... If you barely know theese legends, there is something wrong on this world....

Back on the topic... I like the shows... Love the Dancing Machine and the orchestra instrumental in Beat It and Billie Jean... instrumentally theese two are best composed songs on theese two shows... And I am glad, they pitched MJs vocals a bit down...

The TV editing is just horible... changing setlist, cutting the best parts of BJ...
 

Nite Line

Proud Member
Positives:
- I love the Jacksons reunion. That was by far the highlight of the concert. And it was nice to see Michael sing live.
- MichaelÂ’s vocals, although not perfect, sounded way better than they did at the History Tour.
- Ending of Billie Jean.

Negatives:
- Expected Lip syncing during solo songs. It was so disappointing that Michael so frequently resorted to lip syncing.
- Set list for the solo songs was poor. No Dangerous, MITM, Smooth Criminal.
- TWYMFF with Britney was cringe. It was kinda cringe seeing MJ in his 40s trying to woo a teenage Britney Spears. Also the chemistry between the two just wasnÂ’t there.
- Performance of You Rock My World was unimaginative.
 

Snek

Proud Member
I love the performance on the 10th. To me it has a great spirit, even if MJ isnÂ’t in the best shape. The JacksonsÂ’ section is amazing, the intro to TWYMMF is sublime, and I particularly like the Beat It performance on this night.
 

wonderouzmj

Proud Member
When it originally aired in 2001 I was in 6th grade. At the time, I was just excited to see anything MJ on TV. This was during a time when people still had dial up internet. This was before YouTube and Limewire times. The only shows we had access to were Motown 25, The Legend Continues VHS, a TV recording of Bucharest 1992, Dangerous Short Films, History Short Films and whatever shows VH1 used to air. Anything else MJ had to be bought on Ebay. I still find MSG 2001 enjoyable because it was his last true live performance. I find it kind of annoying that it has been analyzed in so many ways for people to critic what was bad about it. Was MJ at his best? No. But the significance of the anniversary was that we did get that one last show. I appreciate it for what it was.
I had to see if I wrote this lol but man vh1 were the mj glory days in the 90s but your exactly right! I remember being so excited for the trailers & the 1st time it came on I was on a natural high I couldn't come down from. After time I still used to get really really excited when it reaired constantly everytime...the only con was sitting through all the acts waiting for j5/mj. At the time they were even cutting performances...I guess due to time or whatever but I remember dancing with him & at times the 10 year old me could not figure out what was wrong with my idol. He never opened his eyes & he covered his mouth most of the show, he couldn't move his top lip. Had no idea that he was on medication as to at the time I wasn't aware or had never seen anyone in my life high & if I did I didn't know because I didn't know what high was at 10 & the fact the he nor the band could see each other was a huge mistake. I really wonder what that show could've been had mj been in his right mind. Like the 1999 friends show or the TV guide interview. I mean if you compare the TV guide interview with the interview after the 30th anniversary shows when he claimed to be happy going back on stage with his brothers & etc.

Sent from my SM-N986U1 using Tapatalk
 

Eleonora74

Proud Member
MSG was conceived as a TV show since the beginning. And this has ruined most of the things IMO. It's a copy/paste of everything to performe great on TV. But people who were there knows what happened really. It often happens with television shows, you watch them and it doesn't even look like the same show you saw live. I liked the brothers being together again, but i think that if it was just a gig things would have been different.

Ele
 

R1chard

Proud Member
Barely know any of the guests??? Like really? Destinys Child, Whitney houston, Liza Minelli, Gloria Gaynor... If you barely know theese legends, there is something wrong on this world....
I meant:
Usher
Mýa
Billy Gilman
Rayvon and Rikrok
Monica, Al Jarreau, Jill Scott and Deborah Cox
James Ingram
Marc Anthony
Monica, Tamia, Mýa, Deborah Cox and Rah Digga
Cassandra Wilson
Lil' Romeo and Master P
98 Degrees
Aaron Carter
Jason Paige

Literally don't know any of these. It's just a poor lineup used as filler. Dated. And very Amerocentric.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
And very Amerocentric.
Mike is from Gary Indiana, not Tokyo. :laughingv9: It's also a concert that takes place in NYC and broadcast on CBS, both in the USA. So of course it's going to have performers known in the USA to get the TV audience to watch it on CBS. Usher was huge in the USA during the early 2000s. His album Confessions sold over 10 million copies at the time. Which was a big deal for a R&B singer, rather than a rapper. Those were actual physical sales too and not streaming numbers like current mainstream popular artists.

James Ingram wrote P.Y.T.
 
Kind of confusing, hardly any new content, the performances seemed “forced” and You Rock my world was left wanting
 

AdamBa17

Proud Member
I meant:
Usher
Mýa
Billy Gilman
Rayvon and Rikrok
Monica, Al Jarreau, Jill Scott and Deborah Cox
James Ingram
Marc Anthony
Monica, Tamia, Mýa, Deborah Cox and Rah Digga
Cassandra Wilson
Lil' Romeo and Master P
98 Degrees
Aaron Carter
Jason Paige

Literally don't know any of these. It's just a poor lineup used as filler. Dated. And very Amerocentric.

You must be super young. These were all of the biggest stars at that time 🤣 believe me, I was 16 and I know everyone on that list
 

R1chard

Proud Member
Mike is from Gary Indiana, not Tokyo.
No worries. I didn't say it had to be. The question was asked why I didn't like the show. That's the reason I didn't like it. It's fine.

Lol seriously. Everyone knows Usher. He was one of the biggest stars of his time and a highly successful artist.
Again, Amerocentric. He might have been highly successful in America. Elsewhere, not so much. In the 2000s I was mostly going to rock clubs, not listening to radio, etc. I never had any exposure to him.

You must be super young. These were all of the biggest stars at that time 🤣 believe me, I was 16 and I know everyone on that list
In 2001 I was 24. Maybe already too old to care about who was number one in the charts.
 

SIDEWALKS

Proud Member
It's clear as day that Kenny Ortega was not involved in the 30th celebrations.

If you watch the unedited amateur footage it shows just how unorganised Michael, the band and the producers were. It's painful to watch the professionalism we are used to from Michael go out the window.

Was it a rush job? Did Michael not commit himself to the project enough?

It's certainly a stain on his near impeccable live performance history.
 

analogue

Proud Member
It doesn't even look like the You Rock My World performance was rehearsed. It looked like they just stuck the record on and let Michael dance around a little bit.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Again, Amerocentric. He might have been highly successful in America. Elsewhere, not so much. In the 2000s I was mostly going to rock clubs, not listening to radio, etc. I never had any exposure to him.
I just looked it up and Usher had 20 Top 10 hit singles in the UK, including 4 #1s. He also had hit singles in other places like Norway, Australia, Germany, & Netherlands.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
HeÂ’s talking nonsense. Usher was famous in Europe too.
I wasn't aware how popular Usher is/was in other countries outside of the USA. But it's pretty easy to Google it, lol. I know country music is really popular in the USA, but I've heard people say that it's not really a big thing elsewhere. I was mainly responding to the comment that the other acts are "Amerocentric", not how popular they were internationally per se. I would guess if these concerts took place in the UK instead of NYC, the acts would mostly be Eurocentric. The UK acts might not be known as well internationally or in the USA. Like Robbie Williams is not popular in the USA, but I understand he's a big act in the UK. Kylie Minogue only has 2 or 3 hits & A-ha is considered a "one hit wonder" in the USA.
 

SeriousEffect.

Proud Member
One thing I liked about the MSG concerts and MJ's appearance at the MTV awards that year is that MJ's style was really great.
 

Amaya

Proud Member
The show isn't as great as his older concerts, but it holds a special place for me as this was the first time I saw ANY live performance of his. I was 15 and all I knew about Michael at that point was (aside from the negative press) Captain EO, the Bad album, and that he could do something called the "moonwalk". It was my first time seeing the Jackson brothers perform together, first time seeing the Billie Jean routine (and hearing that song in general)... there was something special about it, but I didn't fully realize at the time how magical it was.

Even though the show had its issues and we know that Michael's health wasn't the greatest at the time, I have to say I envy the people who were there; being able to see him live is a privilege that few can say they had.
 

R1chard

Proud Member
I just looked it up and Usher had 20 Top 10 hit singles in the UK, including 4 #1s.
I don't know what to say. I think even when I was 10 I didn't care about who was number 1 in the pop charts. I definitely didn't by the time I got to 20. Plus by that time, I didn't watch TV, didn't listen to the radio, didn't read music magazines. I'm not gonna Google anything because that won't change what I said. Even if he had 50 consecutive number ones it still wouldn't change what I said.

Like, I said it because it's true. I hadn't heard of any of those people listed. That's a fact. It should also be the end of the conversation. It's really not the sort of thing we should be arguing about.

I was mainly responding to the comment that the other acts are "Amerocentric", not how popular they were internationally per se. I would guess if these concerts took place in the UK instead of NYC, the acts would mostly be Eurocentric.
Yes it probably would. AND THATS FINE. You can't please all the people all the time. MJ is the artist, he gets to put on any show he wants. If he puts on a rap show the jazz fans are not gonna be happy. If he puts on a rock show the disco fans are not gonna be happy. If he puts on a gospel show the techno fans are not gonna be happy. All of this is perfectly normal. If he's putting on a show for American TV then I would expect him to tailor it to an American audience. That's simply not me. I really don't understand why you got so triggered that I didn't love the show. I just didn't. Don't take it personally. It's no big deal.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
I really don't understand why you got so triggered that I didn't love the show. I just didn't. Don't take it personally. It's no big deal.
I made no comment about whether or not you liked the show. I responded to you saying Usher is only popular in the USA and that the show was Amerocentric. If you don't follow what is popular with mainstream audiences, how can you comment on how popular a performer is? That is not the same thing as you not having heard of Usher or any of the other acts on the concert.

I simply said it was for the CBS network, which is in the USA. It wouldn't make any sense to have singers mainly known in India or Puerto Rico. That would not draw enough of an television audience and CBS is trying to get a high Nielson rating. CBS is not a cable channel, it's a regular free network. If you watch the Latin Grammys, the Country Music Awards, or BET Awards, then the acts shown will be geared towards those audiences.
 

R1chard

Proud Member
I made no comment about whether or not you liked the show. I responded to you saying Usher is only popular in the USA and that the show was Amerocentric
I said that because it is. As you've hinted at, that was deliberate. By design. It's as though they just looked up whoever had had a #1 hit on Billboard and called them up.

If you don't follow what is popular with mainstream audiences, how can you comment on how popular a performer is? That is not the same thing as you not having heard of Usher or any of the other acts on the concert.
I'm sure other people from the UK have heard of Usher. But he's just not big. Especially with my age group. Or, dare I say it, with typical MJ fans.

Like, I'd not even heard of Akon until the Thriller stuff. It's as though they were trying to force MJ onto a new, younger audience or something.


I simply said it was for the CBS network, which is in the USA. It wouldn't make any sense to have singers mainly known in India or Puerto Rico. That would not draw enough of an television audience and CBS is trying to get a high Nielson rating.
Exactly. So we agree then?

If they had a singer from India, I'm sure the show would have been popular in India. Then it would have been indocentric and likely less popular in America. Same with Puerto Rico. I'm sure they knew what they were doing. In the end they chose USA at the expense of other countries.

If you watch the Latin Grammys, the Country Music Awards, or BET Awards, then the acts shown will be geared towards those audiences.
Yes. Indeed. Ultimately you have to make your decision and live with it. Glad we got to the bottom of this.
 

DuranDuran

Proud Member
I'm sure other people from the UK have heard of Usher. But he's just not big. Especially with my age group. Or, dare I say it, with typical MJ fans.
If having 20 songs in the UK top 10 is not big, then I don't know what is. :laughingv6: You said you didn't watch TV or listen to the radio. So that means you are not qualified to determine who is popular or not. It does not matter if old people do not listen to Top 40 radio. Older people generally did not listen to The Beatles in the 1960s. That does not mean The Fab 4 was not popular with the mainstream audience. Top 40 radio has always mainly been marketed towards teens & young adults anyway. This is the UK Top 10 for this week. I guess you probably never heard of them either.

1 Ed Sheeran - Bad Habits
2 Olivia Rodrigo - good 4 u
3 The Weeknd - Save Your Tears
4 Galantis, David Guetta & Little Mix - Heartbreak Anthem
5 MÃ¥neskin - I Wanna Be Your Slave
6 KSI - Holiday
7 MÃ¥neskin - Beggin'
8 ArrDee - Oliver Twist
9 Doja Cat, The Weeknd - You Right
10 Calvin Harris ft. Tom Grennan - By Your Side
 

SmoothCriminal1995

Proud Member
I love the Billie Jean suitcase build up in the 2001 concerts, because it was a smaller venue and the audience were pumped, it got the reaction it deserved.
I also love how Mike just throws the case and the stool haha so badass
 

Anna

Staff
I'm sure other people from the UK have heard of Usher. But he's just not big. Especially with my age group. Or, dare I say it, with typical MJ fans.

Like, I'd not even heard of Akon until the Thriller stuff. It's as though they were trying to force MJ onto a new, younger audience or something.

I don't know about now because I don't keep up with chart music nowadays, but Usher was really big in the UK back in the day. I mean 'Yeah!' was an absolute banger. Akon was pretty big too as far as I remember. 'Locked Up' was played a lot.
 

Mikky Dee

Staff
Like, I said it because it's true. I hadn't heard of any of those people listed. That's a fact. It should also be the end of the conversation. It's really not the sort of thing we should be arguing about.

But you said it as though just because you hadn't heard of any of the other artists, they were irrelevant and out-dated. Whitney Houston? Britney Spears? Usher? C'mon!!

You not knowing who anyone was, is not a valid criticism of the entire show and it's also not even objective. That's why others have an issue with it.

"Amerocentric" is also not a valid criticism - the concert was for the 30th Anniversary of an AMERICAN group and a top AMERICAN solo artist. AMERICAN pop royalty. I would say that the Jacksons, or Michael in particular, had a hand in choosing who was there. I wouldn't expect to see too many overseas talents there, at all. It's not even a thing.
 

Hulkamaniac

Proud Member
Yes. Indeed. Ultimately you have to make your decision and live with it. Glad we got to the bottom of this.

I imagine that you only listen to MJ or something, but there's lots of good music made by other artists too. Usher, Luther Vandross, Gloria Gaynor, Shaggy, NSYNC/Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, THE JACKSONS... I mean all of em were and are big artists. 30th Anniversary was a great great show.
 
Top Bottom