ElectricBlue said:

Why some Prince fans always have to act like dicks when it comes to talk about MJ ???
From his early days to the Bad era, Michael Jackson was probably one of the best soul singer ever.

And to me a far better singer than Prince.

Here are just a few good live (in true meaning of the word) performances. I know of some good TV performances where he sung live, but can't find them on youtube atm. These clips prove he can sing live, and that he's proven himself to a point where he doesn't need to sing live anymore. He's got nothing to prove anymore.

Man in the Mirror - Grammy awards 1988
http://www.youtube.com/wa...zpTQCQEFhg
He doesn't start singing live until 4:00

Rock With You - Bad tour (Yokohama 1997)
http://www.youtube.com/wa...GN6kgYMrXI

You Were There - Sammy Davis Jr. Tribute
http://www.youtube.com/wa...jmalHcQh54

Billie Jean - Dangerous tour rehearsal
http://www.youtube.com/wa...yRgWEqbwkM

Gone Too Soon - President Clinton's Gala 1992
http://www.youtube.com/wa...0mcxmCGetI
[Edited 2/7/07 22:27pm]

Just like the Billie jean rehearsal, I found another rehearsal I liked and thought some of you guys might enjoy... http://www.youtube.com/wa...D0BWILKPlE (Will You Be There).

Why the hell didn't he sing this song live? He was perfectly capable of doing so.
[Edited 2/7/07 22:25pm]

DarlingDiana said:

First of all, let me give props to Prince for a VERY entertaining Superbowl performance. Having said that, IMO, Michael's performance was MORE entertaining than Princes. I just read an article that said Prince's performance was the most entertaining Superbowl performance SINCE Michael Jackson's Superbowl XXVII performance. Prince was "rock". Michael's was "pop". I loved the everything about Michael's. I have never seen the reaction that I saw after MJ's performance. EVERY, and I mean EVERY, sports commentator at that Superbowl was in awe of MJ's halftime. Our local sportscasters are cynical and "hard-nosed". They couldn't stop talking about how GREAT Michael's halftime was. In reality, MJ set the standard or the bar for great halftime performances. I remember for years after this performance,no wanted to follow him, because they didn't think that they could live up to what he did. Let's give credit where it's due. Michael gave a hell of a performance and NOTHING can take away from that. Michael set the standard and Prince lived up to those standards. I would dare say that the two best Superbowl Halftime performances in history are: Michael Jackson and Prince.Enough said.

skyecute said:

The two greatest performers in history are Michael Jackson and Prince. Enough said.

krayzie said:

Even the hardest music critic can't deny that Michael Jackson is an excellent singer and performer. It doesn't matter if you don't like him, Michael is hands-down the most exciting performer of ANY genre. I enjoy a lot of Prince's music; but, he just doesn't give me the chills and goosebumps that Michael does when I see him in concert. I will never forget the year that Michael and Prince both appeared in my city during the same year. I attended the Prince concert just to see what people were talking about. It was horrible. Not only did I think that, it seems that his fans thought the same thing.People were getting up and leaving in droves. That was during the LoveSexy era. The next day, the local DJ's, who are huge Prince fans, tore this concert to shreds. They said that it was the worst ever. Michael's concert was several months earlier and everybody said that it was not only better than Prince's, but the BEST concert that they had ever attended. Of course, people based their opinions on the show and Michael's talent and not tabloid rumors, appearance and the rest of the bullshit that people NOW use.

skyecute said:

Which is how it should be.

A singer needs to prove every single time they get money for appearing in public as singers that they can sing live.

I can give some slack for Jackson doing the 2001 show with the tapes. He might have been terribly sick, hunchbacking across the stage, with his face botoxed the fuck up.

Most of the 2001 MSG show was live, at least the part with his brothers was.

The solo section was largely lip-synched though.

shygirl said:

Thank you. Prince owns that MFer on so many levels it's not even funny.

Wasn't MJ's Superbowl the most watched ever? Did Prince really beat that? Cool if he did, I suppose.

MJ's still better though.
[Edited 2/8/07 6:45am]

Illustrator said:

MattyJam said:

I posted this in another thread

"Super Bowl XLI partied like it was 1999. And not just because of Prince.

Sunday's big-game telecast on CBS pulled in the highest ratings since 1999's Super Bowl XXXIV, and scored the second-biggest Super Bowl audience ever, averaging 93.2 million party-chip enthusiasts, Nielsen Media Research stats showed.

In the annals of TV history, CBS noted, Super Bowl XLI will go down as the third most watched program ever, behind the final episode of M*A*S*H* (106 million, in 1983) and Super Bowl XXX (94.1 million, in 1995)."
---
source: http://www.eonline.com/ne...ee77574b74

(so yes he did)

CinisterCee said:

Awww...man I thought I was about to see a show!

novabrkr said:

But MJ's not just a singer. He's an entertainer. If you go to a Michael Jackson show, you will be entertained. He may not sing every song live, but when he lip-syncs, he makes up for it with the most amazing dancing you'll ever see. If you aren't into dancing, that fine, but you can't bag on him for not being a good live performer just because dancing isn't your thing.

DarlingDiana said:

But it's not about being into dancing...James Brown danced and never lipsynched...Jackie Wilson, Prince...And so did Michael Jackon during his years with the Jackson 5, the Jackons and his late '70s and '80s solo output...Again, MJ sung live...

The folks in this thread that are saying that MJ never sang live are just trying to do a little shock posting (I can assure you guys that MJ sang his ass off when I saw him in 80-81 during the Triumph tour...); But the ones that are showing dissapointment over MJ lipsynching during his Super Bowl performance and in his last 3 tours are certainly in bounds...You can certainly forgive the likes of Britney Spears for not singing live because she doesn't have the vocal chops...But MJ does...Which makes his lipsyching over the past 15 years more disheartening....It's no way that anyone can make an excuse for such a thing...He's fucking Michael Jackson...One of the greats...No excuse....
[Edited 2/8/07 22:01pm]

murph said:

That IS the excuse! At the time, he was the biggest star in the world. That's why all he had to do was stand still for 5 minutes and blow the audience away. He didn't need to sing live because he had nothing to prove.

And for those who don't know (which seems like most of you), singing live in football stadiums is not common. Prince is the first to ever do it (and there is some speculation about that. I think he sung and played live, but a lot of people think he used playback). No one ever sings live in football stadiums, and the Superbowl organisers always suggest to the perfomer that they use playback. It's encouraged. It is what they want their performers to do, and I bet Prince had to fight hard to make them let him sing and play live. So Michael simply did what he felt needed to be done. He is a perfection and very self concious about his performing. He is not going to risk having a bad sounding performance, that's watched by millions of viewers. The biggest critism Prince has got for his SB performance, was his vocals. People thought they were bad. I liked some of his vocals (All Along the Watchtower and Purple Rain), but I agree he didn't sing some of the songs well and he would've been better off lip-syncing. Becuase echo and crap, you can't hear pitch properly, and you can get thrown-off with your timing if you are hearing too much echo. (Imagine singing something, and hearing it 5 secs later. That'd stuff up your timing something cronic.) And because you don't hear youself until 5 secs later, that means you can't adjust your pitch if you hear that your off. You don't hear that your off until 5 secs later, and by then you could've sung a whole line out of tune. Lip-syncing can be a very smart thing to do. Better than performing out-of-tune and out-of-time.

DarlingDiana said:

I scoured over the Internet and 95 percent of the reviews for the Super Bowl show have been extremely positive...In fact, most of the bloggers, critics and fans (and non fans) have said it was arguably the best Super Bowl gig of all time... As for the somewhat silly "Prince as lipsynching remarks," from what I can gather such comments are being made by either beer-swilling, chest beating jocks who love their classic rock acts or folks that have no knowledge of guitar and vocal delays...Prince can be criticized for a lot of things...But you would be hard pressed to shit on a performer killing it onstage during the pouring rain and still sounding good...

Singing in a stadium is not a valid reason for MJ or any other artist to lipsynch...That's why performers use speaker monitors onstage to hear themselves without delay or being out of tune...Again, you are going to lose this debate everytime when it comes to lipsycnhing...The only folks who don't care about such things are 12 year old Ashely Simpson fans...Or hardcore MJ fans who have no idea that MJ's talents go beyond just dancing...
[Edited 2/8/07 22:37pm]

murph said:

Ofcourse his talent goes beyond dancing. Every MJ fans knows that. The hardcore fans even more so. Get off it and stop degrading MJ fans. They are mostly very intelligent, and sane. Most of them don't agree with his plastic surgery and wish he stayed the way he was. Trust me, when it comes to what MJ's talents are. You guys know shit. You say hardcore fans have no idea that MJ's talents go beyond just dancing. Well, you guys have no idea that MJ's talent goes way beyond the eighties.
[Edited 2/8/07 23:22pm]

DarlingDiana said:

I think many peeps do know how talented MJ is, they may not all necessarily think he is the most talented artist ever, and why should they. There are always going to be those that believe he is a one-trick pony, some are on this board, but his career is there for the world to see starting as 11 yr old, so their points are mute.

However, I do believe in the last 15 yrs MJ has become more of a dancer then singer and hence the lip-syncing and most of his fans today, tend to appreciate him more as a dancer than a singer, which I think is quite sad, because I've always considered MJ a singer first and foremost, who just happens to be a great dancer.

I personally would rather watch the J5 "going back to Indian" 71 Concert, the J5 in Mexico concert 75 or the Truimph tour, I think you get the real essence of a live concert as opposed to his solo tours that are more like overlong, musical promotions.
[Edited 2/9/07 2:25am]
[Edited 2/9/07 2:36am]
[Edited 2/9/07 2:37am]

What´s all this about? Is MJ the only person lipsyncing?

whatsgoingon said:

What about the Bad tour. That kicked ass. Great singing AND great dancing. The best of both worlds. The band was also really good. But I liked the Dangerous band better. Or is it pretty much the same band? Anyway, the Bad tour was awesome. HIStory is the only one that seems liked an overlong, musical promotion.

tonyat said:

Then watch this: http://www.youtube.com/wa...qgaRCG30OE

DarlingDiana said:

I actually went to the Bad Tour, and it was indeed great, but I don't think it was better than the Truimph tour or some of the tours that he did when he was even younger. My cousin who first saw MJ when he was only 14 and the last time saw him during the Dangerous era, as well as seeing a whole host of other artists live including Prince, still puts The Truimph concert way above anything he has done solo.

Has anyone watch the J5 live performance of "I wannabe where you are" during the "Save the Children" concert, someone commented that it was "too live". I can't see anyone describing his more recent performances like that, included the Bad concerts. One of the great things he did with his brothers, but he rarely does live anymore is the way he use to engage the audience, something he virtually never does anymore..
[Edited 2/9/07 4:42am]
[Edited 2/9/07 4:49am]
[Edited 2/9/07 4:50am]

whatsgoingon said:

I never saw it until you pointed it out. So I searched for it on youtube. It's amazing. Wonderful performance! http://www.youtube.com/wa...YSyOISYK0s

I don't wanna get in2 this Prince vs MJ thing again,we all know both are great!
I prefer Prince but I've always liked MJ 2.
This is NOT about who's better,it's about poeple being dissapointed when the
King of pop doesn't sing live.
If the King can't do it live,who can?? The Prince off course

I saw MJ live during the History-tour,was excited 2 finally see him live
but more than half of the show wasn't live!!
I remember critics saying it was such a dissapointment,because Prince AND others sing,dance,run around and play live.
I always thought going 2 a concert means the artist is going 2 perform live,
else I can just play my cd's at home!
So if someone wants 2 compare 2 live performances,the one who really does
it live is the better one,that's so obvious,not??
U might as well put an imitator on stage....

I actually prefer these performances with his brothers to those of the Dangerous and History concerts, you actually get an essence of what MJ and his brothers were about and how great they were as an unit.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...2bPUnhjpKY

http://www.youtube.com/wa...ed&search=
[Edited 2/9/07 6:30am]

Paisley4u said:

An imitator couldn't dance like that! What people don't understand is that MJ's view on entertaining and performing is different to the average musician's. An average musician would get on a stage, sing live, play a few instruments, maybe have a little chat. Michael gets on stage and blows up shit, dances like he's from another planet, turns a music concert into a threater production. It's amazing what he does live and it goes way beyong the usual concept of standing infront of a microphone with a guitar in your hand. That's usually very boring unless (like Prince) you make it entertaining by singing and playing extremely well and doing more than just standing there. Most live performers are very boring.

DarlingDiana said:

But you are talking to an oldschool MJ fan....This is not a "you guys" type of thing...I know that MJ has no business lipsyching because the man has a great voice that should be heard...And yes, his talents goes way beyond the '80s as evident by Dangerous, an underrated gem like "Stranger In Moscow" and even the heartfelt vocal display of "Butterflies"...You see, it would be convenient for you to put the people who criticize MJ's lipsynching in a neat little box...It's not that simple...Lipsynching at concerts is just not cool whether it's MJ or any other great artist...And anyone that makes excuses for it are not making much sense unless they are a fan of the likes of Ashley Simpson...And last time I checked, MJ was one of the immortals...
[Edited 2/9/07 6:44am]

Paisley4u said:

The more I see Michael live, the less impressed I am.

With Prince, I feel like it's a new experience every time. Most of all i love the musicianship of his shows, band included. No matter how well-rehearsed when a show is live it's never the same. The challenge of inclement weather made Prince's performance that much more special. I was at a huge party watching the superbowl and everyone in the place was either spellbound or cheering Prince on. For a minute we forgot we had gathered for a sporting event and when he was done all we wanted was more.

IMO, being an excellent performer is not just about great dancing, it's about being able to captivate your audience, keep them on the edge of their seats and making them feel connected to the experience. I don't care if Prince doesn't dance, when he plays his guitar (or any other instrument) he has my attention. But I have a great respect for musicians and live music so this was by far my favorite Superbowl performance ever.