janetDAYZ Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 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? Obviously MIKE wanted eye candy too thats what THIS IS IT was about!!!! He knew that was him taking it to ANOTHER LEVEL. Had he been content with his other tours he would have gave you the Bad tour PART 4 (Dangerous and History were 2 and 3). Lets not act like spectacle dont add because YOU for damn sure appreciate Janet's "spectacle". Mike would hold up better than Madonna with just a spotlight,sure but we're talking OVERALL appeal of a show. Mike is not enough to just carry. Go look at the damn tours. IGNORES the "She can't sing" shit Alot of ppl liked the RWU tour but put a poll up between TVR and RWU and see which one wins I loved the RWU tour but TVR is w/o a doubt her most iconic show to date but if you feel its not..create a poll. I dare you. Just because a tour is more recent doesn't equate to being more elaborate. An artist can choose to scale back or go bigger.SO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN you cant compare an old tour to one today? I said Mike's show had weak moments (meaning it was room for improvement of piecing shit together). I didnt call Michael weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 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. Its funny how certain receipts from sources you all will accept and stand by them but when receipts are in the favor of someone you all dont like,you wanna discredit whats written in the history books. Where do you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 I clearly said solo act, genius. You said no he's not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Obviously MIKE wanted eye candy too thats what THIS IS IT was about!!!! He knew that was him taking it to ANOTHER LEVEL. Had he been content with his other tours he would have gave you the Bad tour PART 4 (Dangerous and History were 2 and 3). Lets not act like spectacle dont add because YOU for damn sure appreciate Janet's "spectacle". Mike would hold up better than Madonna with just a spotlight,sure but we're talking OVERALL appeal of a show. Mike is not enough to just carry. Go look at the damn tours. IGNORES the "She can't sing" shit Alot of ppl liked the RWU tour but put a poll up between TVR and RWU and see which one wins I loved the RWU tour but TVR is w/o a doubt her most iconic show to date but if you feel its not..create a poll. I dare you. Just because a tour is more recent doesn't equate to being more elaborate. An artist can choose to scale back or go bigger.SO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN you cant compare an old tour to one today? I said Mike's show had weak moments (meaning it was room for improvement of piecing shit together). I didnt call Michael weak. As I said before, of course a tour is going to be more elaborate and "bigger" compared to a tour 16/17 years ago. Dangerous and HIStory were both state of the art for their times. It's only natural that he would push the boundaries more. However, that point remains that Mike wasn't just all spectacle. Even "This Is It" wasn't going to be all spectacle. It was going to be similar to his past shows in that their would be elements of spectacle and it would be a MAJOR SHOW, but that wasn't going to carry the show. Unlike the other performer in this thread.... You can't IGNORE the truth. Again, RWU NEVER had any professional footage and/or DVD released. Therefore in a poll most are going to choose TVR because there is professional footage/DVD to actually reference that show. What I said (and pay close attention) is most who actually SAW the show have stated it was the better show, and IF there was a DVD release that it would possibly become the "majority opinion". The point of all of that was even if the "majority opinion" leaned toward RWU being the better show (Again, IF there were a DVD release) it wouldn't be a fair comparison because things would be more elaborate production wise, as there is 10 years separating the shows. Hence, the reason you can't compare something in the 2000's to something 15/16 years ago production wise. The only slight "weakness" regarding any of Mike tours is with HIStory. He was forced to lipsync (to maintain his voice and not damage it any further), but he didn't go back in and pre-record "live" vocals. Which was a mistake, but "weak" concerning entertainment and Michael Jackson do not belong together in any way shape or form. Its funny how certain receipts from sources you all will accept and stand by them but when receipts are in the favor of someone you all dont like,you wanna discredit whats written in the history books. Where do you draw the line? It's not discrediting anything. It's the truth. We do the same thing for Janet's tours and calculating inflation in with her numbers. Mike played to MORE audiences than Madonna with his tours. He IS the most successful solo touring act. It's the simple truth. You will deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 As I said before, of course a tour is going to be more elaborate and "bigger" compared to a tour 16/17 years ago. Dangerous and HIStory were both state of the art for their times. It's only natural that he would push the boundaries more. However, that point remains that Mike wasn't just all spectacle. Even "This Is It" wasn't going to be all spectacle. It was going to be similar to his past shows in that their would be elements of spectacle and it would be a MAJOR SHOW, but that wasn't going to carry the show. Unlike the other performer in this thread.... Are you serious?! This was gonna be his most elaborate "spectacle" EVER. You are losing credibility for even saying that foolish shit. Of course he wasn't gonna RELY solely on the production,he never does...My whole point was that his past tours would have been even BETTER had he went all out and fuse it with his GOD giving performing talent. Again, RWU NEVER had any professional footage and/or DVD released. Therefore in a poll most are going to choose TVR because there is professional footage/DVD to actually reference that show. So are you saying members opinions on here wouldn't suffice as far as seeing which show outweighs the other? What I said (and pay close attention) is most who actually SAW the show have stated it was the better show, and IF there was a DVD release that it would possibly become the "majority opinion". The point of all of that was even if the "majority opinion" leaned toward RWU being the better show (Again, IF there were a DVD release) it wouldn't be a fair comparison because things would be more elaborate production wise, and there is 10 years separating the shows. Hence, the reason you can't compare something in the 2000's to something 15/16 years ago production wise. TOF.. Im sure you and your sister STRAWBERR'S BABY would say Mike's Danerous Tour shits on EVERY tour of today,right? If so..then time has nothing to do with shit. Yes,technology has advanced further now but that does NOT mean someone is guaranteed to have an elaborate show. If that were the case. History would have looked more elaborate than Dangerous and it DIDN'T. They were twin brothers. Its up to an artist whether they wanna go BIG or not. The only slight "weakness" regarding any of the Mike tours with HIStory. He was forced to lipsync (to maintain his voice and not damage it any further), but he didn't go back in and pre-record "live" vocals. Which was a mistake, but "weak" concerning entertainment and Michael Jackson do not belong together in any way shape of form. You are letting his NAME completely make you oblivious. If you sit DOWN and watch that History tour there is alot of areas that are just not well put together. Yes,he's a performer but it takes MORE than that to put on an incredible show. If tours didn't cause for elborate sets and production EVERY artist would just get a spotlight and a mic if that were the case. Prodction IS needed. Mike's show was BIGGER than he was. You need HELP to put on an incredible show. Why do you think artists get dancers,a band,pyros,high tech lighting,smoke,etc? It's not discrediting anything. It's the truth. We do the same thing for Janet's tours and calculating inflation in with her numbers. Mike played to MORE audiences than Madonna with his tour. He IS the most successful solo touring act. It's the simple truth. You will deal. so basically you're saying Madonna's record is bullshit. So again..where do we draw the line of whats actual facts and whats not when it comes to records that are broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Are you serious?! This was gonna be his most elaborate "spectacle" EVER. You are losing credibility for even saying that foolish shit. Of course he wasn't gonna RELY solely on the production,he never does...My whole point was that his past tours would have been even BETTER had he went all out and fuse it with his GOD giving performing talent. It was going be his most elaborate production because he always pushed those boundaries. The spectacle never took away from the artist...and that is the point. You are going on about eye candy when his god given talent was star of the show not necessarily the additional "eye candy" So are you saying members opinions on here wouldn't suffice as far as seeing which show outweighs the other? No, I am saying you can't do a proper poll because one show does not have a proper release for us to reference. I am saying many (who actually saw the show) do think RWU was Janet's best tour to date. I am saying if there was a proper professional release RWU would have the "majority vote" because it is more elaborate and bigger. I am also saying that IF there was a proper DVD release and a "majority vote" in the RWU tour's favor it wouldn't be fair comparison because there is 10 years separating them production wise....and in terms of production that is equivalent to a lifetime. Hence, why I said you can't compare something in the 2000's to something 15/16 years ago production wise. TOF.. Im sure you and your sister STRAWBERR'S BABY would say Mike's Danerous Tour shits on EVERY tour of today,right? If so..then time has nothing to do with shit. It shits because it's a good show, starring arguably the greatest entertainer of our time. You are making it about technology by comparing Mike's tours then to Madonna's tours now when the ONLY thing she has on her side is technology, spectacle, and eye candy. All of that is featured in a Michael Jackson show, but those things are not the STAR of a Michael Jackson show. The same can't be said for Madonna. You are letting his NAME completely make you oblivious. If you sit DOWN and watch that History tour there is alot of areas that are just not well put together. Yes,he's a performer but it takes MORE than that to put on an incredible show. If tours didn't cause for elborate sets and production EVERY artist would just get a spotlight and a mic if that were the case. Prodction IS needed. Mike's show was BIGGER than he was. You need HELP to put on an incredible show. Why do you think artists get dancers,a band,pyros,high tech lighting,smoke,etc? No I am not, you said Michael had weak moments on BOTH the Dangerous and HIStory tours, when that is not true. The ONLY slight "weakness" is the one regarding HIStory which I pointed out. Everything you are referring to is wanting more eye candy and more spectacle and comparing and contrasting between a state of the art show in 1992 and state of the art shows in the 2000's to make your point. so basically you're saying Madonna's record is bullshit. So again..where do we draw the line of whats actual facts and whats not when it comes to records that are broken? I didn't say Madonna's record is bullshit. I simply said Mike is the most successful solo touring act which is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 When comparing Mike and Madge especially via performing, you're comparing two different artists. One who can entertain an audience for an hour and a half to two hours with simple pyrotechnics, his band, his dancing and dancers, and his voice. And the other, has tons of flash, costumes, and I guess you can call them hits. Dayz, next time you pick artists to compare, use artists who are along the same lines in terms of performing/showmanship. Not just base it on two people in music who are very popular. Michael can add all the flashy shit as well as what he was doing before and have a tremendous show that will sell like crazy. Madge cannot, no matter what some of you may say, take away all the flash and keep people entertained who aren't just her stans for an hour and a half. That, my dear, is the gospel truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 When comparing Mike and Madge especially via performing, you're comparing two different artists. One who can entertain an audience for an hour and a half to two hours with simple pyrotechnics, his band, his dancing and dancers, and his voice. And the other, has tons of flash, costumes, and I guess you can call them hits. Dayz, next time you pick artists to compare, use artists who are along the same lines in terms of performing/showmanship. Not just base it on two people in music who are very popular. Michael can add all the flashy shit as well as what he was doing before and have a tremendous show that will sell like crazy. Madge cannot, no matter what some of you may say, take away all the flash and keep people entertained who aren't just her stans for an hour and a half. That, my dear, is the gospel truth. When you compare you dont have to necessarily have two acts that are along the same lines. Part of me pitting these two against each other was to get an idea of what ppls taste are when it comes to LIVE shows. It would be no different than me asking which catalog do you like the best of the two. I like Michael more than Madonna but I prefer her shows over his just from observation of both of their work.Mike left me wanting more,Madonna took me on a journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 When you compare you dont have to necessarily have two acts that are along the same lines. Part of me pitting these two against each other was to get an idea of what ppls taste are when it comes to LIVE shows. It would be no different than me asking which catalog do you like the best of the two. I like Michael more than Madonna but I prefer her shows over his just from observation of both of their work.Mike left me wanting more,Madonna took me on a journey. Comparing acts so different would lead people into a discussion about the success of the tour itself, not necessarily what the shows were. Mike's tours were designed to leave people wanting more. He isn't the best selling artist for nothing. He always gave just enough for people to want to keep coming back for more. To have them anticipate what he was gonna do next. With the last tour, it was basically like the climax to what his other tours lead up to. The show of the millennium. Madonna may have given a "journey" as you guys call it, but Mike's gave what many prefer. Raw talent. He added some fancy stuff, but it was mostly him. No artist, besides Janet and I believe Prince, can say the same. Once again, Mike would have sold out shows with or without the flash. Madonna would not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 When comparing Mike and Madge especially via performing, you're comparing two different artists. One who can entertain an audience for an hour and a half to two hours with simple pyrotechnics, his band, his dancing and dancers, and his voice. And the other, has tons of flash, costumes, and I guess you can call them hits. Dayz, next time you pick artists to compare, use artists who are along the same lines in terms of performing/showmanship. Not just base it on two people in music who are very popular. Michael can add all the flashy shit as well as what he was doing before and have a tremendous show that will sell like crazy. Madge cannot, no matter what some of you may say, take away all the flash and keep people entertained who aren't just her stans for an hour and a half. That, my dear, is the gospel truth. EXACTLY!!!!! Comparing acts so different would lead people into a discussion about the success of the tour itself, not necessarily what the shows were. Mike's tours were designed to leave people wanting more. He isn't the best selling artist for nothing. He always gave just enough for people to want to keep coming back for more. To have them anticipate what he was gonna do next. With the last tour, it was basically like the climax to what his other tours lead up to. The show of the millennium. Madonna may have given a "journey" as you guys call it, but Mike's gave what many prefer. Raw talent. He added some fancy stuff, but it was mostly him. No artist, besides Janet and I believe Prince, can say the same. Once again, Mike would have sold out shows with or without the flash. Madonna would not. Exactly! :clapping: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 EXACTLY!!!!! Exactly! :clapping: :cheer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 :cheer: +1 for both posts! You sum up what I was trying to say so well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 +1 for both posts! You sum up what I was trying to say so well! Thank you, honey. I figured you were going there so I thought I'd lend you a hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Thank you, honey. I figured you were going there so I thought I'd lend you a hand You know how I am, I can be a bit long winded at time. lol You summed it up perfectly though! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 You know how I am, I can be a bit long winded at time. lol You summed it up perfectly though! lol No trouble. It was actually a pretty fun read. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 No trouble. It was actually a pretty fun read. lol I'm a good debater, but I need to work on making my points short and concise. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm a good debater, but I need to work on making my points short and concise. lol It's a skill that takes practice, but I'm sure you can master it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's a skill that takes practice, but I'm sure you can master it I doubt it, that's my one shortcoming during a debate. I'm good, but I can be a bit long-winded. I don't think it's going to change. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I doubt it, that's my one shortcoming during a debate. I'm good, but I can be a bit long-winded. I don't think it's going to change. lol Practice, practice, practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The purpose of singing live is to entertain with your voice. There's no point in singing live if you sound like shit. So you lose there Dayz. Sorry. And some people do prefer RWUTour over TVRTour. So you lose again there, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn1814 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 When you compare you dont have to necessarily have two acts that are along the same lines. Part of me pitting these two against each other was to get an idea of what ppls taste are when it comes to LIVE shows. It would be no different than me asking which catalog do you like the best of the two. I like Michael more than Madonna but I prefer her shows over his just from observation of both of their work.Mike left me wanting more,Madonna took me on a journey. When did you start liking that hooker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The purpose of singing live is to entertain with your voice. There's no point in singing live if you sound like shit. So you lose there Dayz. Sorry. And some people do prefer RWUTour over TVRTour. So you lose again there, too. :clapping: Awwww, we agree.... When did you start liking that hooker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 When comparing Mike and Madge especially via performing, you're comparing two different artists. One who can entertain an audience for an hour and a half to two hours with simple pyrotechnics, his band, his dancing and dancers, and his voice. And the other, has tons of flash, costumes, and I guess you can call them hits. And when debating the differences between the two, you're operating with bias because you clearly don't like Madonna. As I said, I've been lucky enough to attend both a Michael Jackson and a Madonna concert, and let me tell you the highlight of Madonna's show was just her and a guitar singing 'You Must Love Me'. Judging by the crowd that night, a lot of people felt that was their highlight too. I could've listened to that for hours, and millions more would also. Dayz was quite right to compare MJ and Madonna because they are the king and queen, respectively. And yes, I guess we could call her songs "hits". I mean, Billboard does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laveaux Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 *giggles* you MJ stans kill me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 *giggles* you MJ stans kill me. Because we're always winning? I would be mad too. Madonna certainly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.