ThatOtherFan Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Madonna could NEVER The crowd was super hype when he did Black or White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The crowd was super hype when he did Black or White http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njoptnMTC7g Yes they were.. :excited: I chose Mike on stage by himself (with no props, etc) to prove a point though...that point, Madonna could NEVER! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedvelvet Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The most successful touring solo act in history. The one who who booked over $400 million with one tour. The one that has most of y'all bothered... Actually Michael Jackson is the most successful touring act. History tour was seen by more people and grossed more than any other tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I want to read your Facebook statuses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn1814 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 NUFF SAID !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idrag4mj Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Actually Michael Jackson is the most successful touring act. History tour was seen by more people and grossed more than any other tour. You know ..i have always kept quite about this most successful touring act claim that her team and and other outlets keep pushing ..but truth is its not true.... But with that said really..whats the point of going on a 500million tour and only pocketing less than 100million of the that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedvelvet Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The history tour visited more people than any other tour....4.5 million. It grossed more money than any tour if u (quite rightly) consider inflation. But 'this is it' was to beat all records. It sold 50 dates in one city and was planned to do similar in numerous cities across the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 I'm not talking about people losing it and falling all over the place. He had that yes, I'm talking about him being on stage by himself and keeping the crowd enthralled by his performance. With no need for props, etc....he could give you eye candy, he could you a big production, but at the same time he could scale it all down and still have the crowd in the palm of his hand. Madonna does not posses that....at all. No, it's not irrelevant because the bitch can't sing! Up until HIStory Mike sung live and more so than ALL of his contemporaries, with the exception of maybe Prince. He began lipsyncing because of issues with his voice and not wanting to damage it. It looked incredible because it was incredible. lol A show from 1992/93 is not going to be comparable production-wise to a show in the 2000's. Which is essentially what you're doing. Of course things were going to be more elaborate and "bigger" with "This Is It" because it was 16/17 years later! lol The point remains you can strip all of the spectacle from a Michael Jackson show and still have an amazing performance by one of the greatest entertainers of our time. The same cannot be said for Madonna if you were to strip all of the spectacle from her show. ...and yes you are looking for "eye candy" more so than anything else. lol Simply because Michael is an EVENT when he performs. So thats easily by DEFAULT. Even his choreography for his tours weren't that incredible. He did rely moreso on himself (which gets kind of boring and redundant) to carry out the show. His shows were more like "a stage..a mic..moonwalk and my spotlight" which is fine and dandy but he already did that with the BAd tour. He was missing other elements that help create an even BETTER show is my point. If he wants it to just focus on him,more power to Mike I respect that BUT I feel thats what made his shows lack. Another thing is his tours didn't have a cohesive flow. To be honest Mike never had a tour that could even fuck with THE VELVET ROPE tour simply because Janet incorporates so many elements that makes a show a fucking SHOW. Even non Janet fans appreciate and like TVR tour.Like I said the BEST part about Mike's tours is always the opneing but after that ...its just .... I see you are still bringing up Madonna "can't sing" shit and YES IT IS IRRELEVANT. The point is is that she sang LIVE more than Mike. Tho I know its hard to you will have to deal. You CAN compare a show from the 90s to a show in the 00s Take TVR tour (98') and RWU tour (08')...guess who STILL gets the praise over the other one? Just because the RWU tour is more recent doesn't mean it was better or will be better by default. If something is incredible -its incredible and it will stick! You saying yo can strip Micahel of all the spectacle and still get an incredible show, I disagree. Mike is good at performances but carrying a whole show is another thing. Are you telling me that the History tour didn't have weak moments? Are you telling me Dangerous didn't have weak moments? TVR show was strong all the way thru..Mikes just were not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 The history tour visited more people than any other tour....4.5 million. It grossed more money than any tour if u (quite rightly) consider inflation. But 'this is it' was to beat all records. It sold 50 dates in one city and was planned to do similar in numerous cities across the world. Thats irrelevant since Madonna grossed the most of any solo act in history with her last tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I believe Michael has grossed more than Madonna in tours if you adjust for inflation. The Thriller Tour Victory Tour, and Bad - HIStory. Plus This is It was expected to gross about $200 million if my memory serves me correctly. Only Madonna tours that have grossed more than $100 million are her last three, which collectively grossed ~$720mil. The rest have grossed less than Michael's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Actually Michael Jackson is the most successful touring act. History tour was seen by more people and grossed more than any other tour. No, he's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 U2 are the most successful touring act... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I clearly said solo act, genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idrag4mj Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Michael is THE BAD tour grossed around 125million dollars in the 80s ...do you know how much money that is today??????????Way over 500million dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Not here for assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idrag4mj Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Assumptions ..thats not assumptions..im not going to pull out receipts ..cos you will just find something different to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 im not going to pull out receipts I know because you have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Simply because Michael is an EVENT when he performs. So thats easily by DEFAULT. Even his choreography for his tours weren't that incredible. He did rely moreso on himself (which gets kind of boring and redundant) to carry out the show. His shows were more like "a stage..a mic..moonwalk and my spotlight" which is fine and dandy but he already did that with the BAd tour. He was missing other elements that help create an even BETTER show is my point. If he wants it to just focus on him,more power to Mike I respect that BUT I feel thats what made his shows lack. Another thing is his tours didn't have a cohesive flow. To be honest Mike never had a tour that could even fuck with THE VELVET ROPE tour simply because Janet incorporates so many elements that makes a show a fucking SHOW. Even non Janet fans appreciate and like TVR tour.Like I said the BEST part about Mike's tours is always the opneing but after that ...its just .... I see you are still bringing up Madonna "can't sing" shit and YES IT IS IRRELEVANT. The point is is that she sang LIVE more than Mike. Tho I know its hard to you will have to deal. You CAN compare a show from the 90s to a show in the 00s Take TVR tour (98') and RWU tour (08')...guess who STILL gets the praise over the other one? Just because the RWU tour is more recent doesn't mean it was better or will be better by default. If something is incredible -its incredible and it will stick! You saying yo can strip Micahel of all the spectacle and still get an incredible show, I disagree. Mike is good at performances but carrying a whole show is another thing. Are you telling me that the History tour didn't have weak moments? Are you telling me Dangerous didn't have weak moments? TVR show was strong all the way thru..Mikes just were not. Again, that's you wanting eye candy...and taking that over a true entertainer. You want spectale. Eye Candy. Even more spectacle. Even more eye candy. etc...and if that's what you want that's fine. That does not make the "spectacle based" show the better show. Especially considering if you strip all of that from one of the performers, you wouldn't have a show. No, it isn't irrelevant because again the bitch can't sing. Simple as that. Who brags about a person singing live and they sound like utter shit? lol Madonna does not sing live more than Michael. With the exception of the HIStory tour, Mike was either 60%-70% live (The Dangerous Tour) or 100% live (The Bad Tour and all of his tours prior to that). You forget Michael performed (and sounded damn good live) since the age of 6 or 7. First that's subjective, because many who actually saw the show said that RWU was Janet's best tour to date. That it was bigger, better, and more elaborate. The downfall for the RWU tour is there were only 15/16 dates and no professional footage shot of the tour to truly compare and contrast. If there were professional footage shot and released, I'm willing to bet that the number of people who actually think the RWU tour is Janet's best tour would increase even more and probably become the "majority opinion". Second, even if the "majority" would pick the RWU tour (again, providing that there was professional footage and a DVD release) it still wouldn't be a fair comparison because OF COURSE things would be more elaborate with the RWU compared to VR, because that's the nature of the beast to go bigger with each production. Hence, the reason you can't compare something in the 2000's to something 15/16 years ago production wise. Weakness as an entertainer and Michael Jackson in the same sentence? You have to be kidding, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idrag4mj Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Sponsored by Pepsi and spanning 16 months, the tour included 123 concerts to 4.4 million fans across 15 countries. When the tour concluded it grossed a total of $125 million, adding two new entries in the Guinness World Records for the largest grossing tour in history and the tour with the largest attended audience.[1] http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=9-slAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ifMFAAAAIBAJ&dq=michael%20jackson%20tour&pg=894%2C8029252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 LOL @ the self-read. Nowhere is $500 million stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I know because you have none. Michael IS the most successful solo touring act. As Austineisha stated, when adjusted for inflation. The Bad Tour played to over 4 million people and The HIStory tour played to 4.5 million people (higher than the attendances of ANY Madonna tour). Madonna will always be #2 to Michael (and #3 if we add Janet to the mix) and she and her stans will simply have to deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Idrag4mj Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 i said if we were to adjust it to ticket prices of today !! the same way movies of yesterday are adjusted to ticket prices of today..its will be in that range ..SIMPLE ENGLISH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Again, I'm not here for your assumptions.... SIMPLE FACT. fdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*~WhitePicketDreams~* Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Um MJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.