Posts by crimsonstag59

ruggedmarlin15 said:1. Just relax.
2. If you don't have any actual arguments, please don't try to make them up; it just makes you look desperate.
3. I haven't once tried to diminish the quality of Michael Jackson's music because it's indisputable and obvious. I honestly don't get why you're bringing up playback—it’s unnecessary and totally counterproductive. Why are you getting so worked up about it? It's overkill.
4. It’s a bit sad that you're focusing on superficial comparisons instead of using logic. "My Madonna"? I don't like "that" kind of music? How old are you? And how are you not embarrassed right now? 🤷

These pathetic attempts to devalue Michael Jackson's music by constantly insisting there isn't an official live CD release are completely pointless. And again—it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality itself.

In this entire conversation, you haven't provided a single solid argument for your claims; you've just resorted to personal attacks and venting. That really shows how little your points actually matter. 🙄

Comparing him to the Rolling Stones is just as baseless as that Madonna comparison you brought up at the start of this thread (which wasn't my fault!). He simply didn't offer that classic rock'n'roll formula where the studio sound and live sound are nearly identical. Sometimes even the Rolling Stones sound better live. They are just in different leagues! But clearly, you don't see that.

You're just talking nonsense and clearly don't know the subject very well. First, you realize that artists of Michael Jackson's caliber don't always release live albums, then I bring up two globally massive acts, and you respond by saying they can't be compared. Fine. Then go ahead and name a few artists who *can* be compared to Michael (besides Madonna, who clearly struck a nerve with you, even though she is absolutely in his league and releases live albums 😉), and then maybe we can actually have a conversation.

Polishing a live performance in the studio, like most people do today, would be nothing short of a fraud.

Oh, sure. And singing along to playback isn't a fraud? 🤣

If they had ever truly wanted to fake their singing on a tour, they could have just played the master track and everyone would have just yawned while they danced. It would have been much easier for them! 🙄

And they did make it easy. I've given you plenty of information regarding the tours where Michael Jackson used playback. You are making a conscious choice to ignore those facts. You can try to dodge the point all you want, but it just highlights your lack of real argumentation.

(Just as a side note—the Rolling Stones were once accused of using playback during their shows in Germany. The epilogue? The accusers lost the case and ended up having to pay both the legal costs and a fine for defamation. And those people were supposed to be music experts—yeah, right! 🤣)

This point is about as relevant as your mention of Tina Turner (though you still haven't actually explained why you brought her up in the first place 😉). You also completely ignored my response to your question regarding attending concerts. You tried to make a point based on absolutely nothing, and now you're just skipping over it. 🤣
And "just as a side note," I can't find anything on Google about lawsuits against the Rolling Stones regarding playback at their concerts. Are you making this up again, or what?

What... was I supposed to give you a standing ovation?! 😂

Just because you can't find it on Google doesn't mean it isn't real—Google isn't omniscient (despite what you seem to think), but if you actually researched the topic you're talking about, you'd know! 😉Go ask someone, but step away from the PC!
Maybe try an old magazine or a book... look around. You'll definitely find something; it wasn't that long ago, maybe ten years back, just dig...
And since this whole thing is getting boring for everyone from God to the devil, go take a break and stop playing back your own nonsense!

My bad on the double post!!! Server glitch got me there.

Could someone delete the extra one? Thanks!

ruggedmarlin15 said:And then you go and give me this massive response... when I wasn't even asking for one. Seriously. 😉

I’ll leave you to compare Madonna to whoever you want, but at the end of the day, she's still your idol, isn't she?

Look, Velis, am I really a troll? It seems pretty obvious to me that your posts don't carry any real weight when you constantly resort to making things up.

You clearly have an issue with live performances! It’s pretty obvious. You seem to be bothered by the fact that "Live in Bucharest" isn't on a CD, but instead is "only" on DVD—where you actually get to see the performance along with the audio.

The DVD was released specifically because of the visuals. My only issue is that they're trying to sell me on a "concert experience" by focusing way too much on the choreography. playbackIt’s fine. Just give it another shot. And please, let's try to keep things calm. 😉

Just so you know—and I realize you're probably just trolling here—stars on the level of Michael Jackson don't typically release live albums as a way to offer a premium musical experience.

I have to disagree. U2, the Rolling Stones, and bands like them aren't exactly small-time stars... 🤦 Come on, don't embarrass yourself...

Alright, now you try to guess why! It’s actually the only one that comes bundled together with the video recording.

You might not get why, but sometimes you just have to scream. Just let it out. And don't get ahead of yourself—the fact that certain concerts only ever get released on DVD actually proves my point.

Here’s a solid comparison for you—"Tina Turner Live in Europe." It was recorded right when her career was hitting its absolute peak, but get this: it was actually filmed at a small club in New York City, Madison Square Garden (I actually know the venue personally and even caught another show there once!).

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I was wondering, how many concerts have you actually been to in your life, and which ones were they?

Honestly, I've been everywhere. First time was back in 1987, most recent was just last Friday. Everything from pop and rock to blues and electronic... but that’s beside the point here. It seems my points hit a little too close to home for you, because instead of actually countering my arguments, you're just throwing a tantrum without offering any real rebuttals. It's a bit much. I'm half expecting you to tell me your dad is stronger than mine next...

These condescending attitudes remind me so much of someone who's clearly never stepped foot in a concert venue... <cut>

Look, you can talk all you want, but you haven't actually disproven anything I've said. I'm stating facts, not being condescending. I don't really get why you're making these weak attempts at being off-topic on top of being off-topic. You're just wasting your time.

Well, I've never been to a Michael Jackson concert myself; I was never such a huge fan that I'd fly to another country just for that. Now I kind of regret it.

I don't feel the same way. I'd feel pretty bad dropping that much cash if they were just using playback. But hey, I'm not judging anyone else's preference—if his dancing alone is enough for them, that's their business. For me, though, I really regret missing Queen with Freddie Mercury live. That would have been an incredible audio-visual experience. Plus, they released live albums (not just one, either).

Anyway, getting back to this "problem" of yours, you're just trolling about some playback nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual issue.

I provided verifiable information, yet you just keep rambling about things that are completely irrelevant. If you can't come up with anything better, then fine. ☕

I listen to that "One Night in Japan" and while hearing a classic performed LIVE is lovely, it's nowhere near the peak musical experience you get from studio albums! Guess why! ☕

I don't need to guess. The answer is right there in the links I posted earlier.
And "One Night in Japan" is just another unofficial DVD. So much for my trolling. 😉

uh oh ...
Michael Jackson - Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour DVD Studio Sony Music
Orig Year 1992
DVD Encoding Region 1
So much for the DIY skills of a certain troll!

"Uh oh"? I don't see the album listed there. Looks like you'll have to try again. Though I suspect you'll be happy to.

Actually, maybe we should move these posts about playback over to the music section... This is getting pretty off-topic...

Good God! This whole trolling thing regarding playback and what media counts as a musical release (whatever your definition of an "album" happens to be) is just an excuse for my long-winded "response." It's not even specifically aimed at you. You think you know everything anyway! whatever
You seem especially focused on nitpicking and slicing up posts (I guess that makes it more exciting for you), but I'm just wondering—is this your way of calming your nerves, or do you just want your replies to look more significant by making them longer? Honestly, it could be both.

These pathetic attempts to devalue Michael Jackson's music by repeatedly insisting there isn't an official live CD release are just shots in the dark. And again—it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality.
Comparing the Rolling Stones to him is just as pointless as that mention of Madonna you made at the start of this thread (not that I was the one who brought her up!).
The guy simply didn't offer that classic rock'n'roll formula where the studio version and the live version sound basically identical. Sometimes even the Rolling Stones sound better live. They're playing in different leagues entirely! But clearly, that's lost on you.
And why do you even care about a Live CD Jackson? It's not even your style of music!

And the fact that you can't find an "album"—that's not because it doesn't exist (just pop in a DVD, turn off the TV, and listen to Michael! Or just rip it to an MP3 😉).
Besides, that release from Japan is actually solid, aside from lacking the Sony stamp 🙄. Michael Jackson probably would never have agreed to releasing anything that didn't meet his studio production standards. In his case, achieving that was nearly impossible. Trying to polish a live performance in a studio, like everyone does nowadays, would have been a total fraud.
If they had ever intended to fake the vocals on a tour, they could have just played the studio master and let everyone yawn while they clearly just danced. That would have been much easier! 🙄

(As an aside—the Rolling Stones were once accused of playback during a concert in Germany. The epilogue? The prosecutors lost and had to pay the legal costs and a fine for slander. And those people were supposed to be music experts—yeah, right! 🤣 can you believe it?
)
☕ You really should stick to talking about music playback. We were talking about a film here. Everything surrounding this whole story remains unfinished and largely misunderstood!

ruggedmarlin15 said:And then you go and give me this massive response... when I wasn't even asking for one. Seriously. 😉

I’ll leave you to compare Madonna to whoever you want, but at the end of the day, she's still your idol, isn't she?

Look, Velis, am I really a troll? It seems pretty obvious to me that your posts don't carry any real weight when you constantly resort to making things up.

You clearly have an issue with live performances! It’s pretty obvious. You seem to be bothered by the fact that "Live in Bucharest" isn't on a CD, but instead is "only" on DVD—where you actually get to see the performance along with the audio.

The DVD was released specifically because of the visuals. My only issue is that they're trying to sell me on a "concert experience" by focusing way too much on the choreography. playbackIt’s fine. Just give it another shot. And please, let's try to keep things calm. 😉

Just so you know—and I realize you're probably just trolling here—stars on the level of Michael Jackson don't typically release live albums as a way to offer a premium musical experience.

I have to disagree. U2, the Rolling Stones, and bands like them aren't exactly small-time stars... 🤦 Come on, don't embarrass yourself...

Alright, now you try to guess why! It’s actually the only one that comes bundled together with the video recording.

You might not get why, but sometimes you just have to scream. Just let it out. And don't get ahead of yourself—the fact that certain concerts only ever get released on DVD actually proves my point.

Here’s a solid comparison for you—"Tina Turner Live in Europe." It was recorded right when her career was hitting its absolute peak, but get this: it was actually filmed at a small club in New York City, Madison Square Garden (I actually know the venue personally and even caught another show there once!).

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I was wondering, how many concerts have you actually been to in your life, and which ones were they?

Honestly, I've been everywhere. First time was back in 1987, most recent was just last Friday. Everything from pop and rock to blues and electronic... but that’s beside the point here. It seems my points hit a little too close to home for you, because instead of actually countering my arguments, you're just throwing a tantrum without offering any real rebuttals. It's a bit much. I'm half expecting you to tell me your dad is stronger than mine next...

These condescending attitudes remind me so much of someone who's clearly never stepped foot in a concert venue... <cut>

Look, you can talk all you want, but you haven't actually disproven anything I've said. I'm stating facts, not being condescending. I don't really get why you're making these weak attempts at being off-topic on top of being off-topic. You're just wasting your time.

Well, I've never been to a Michael Jackson concert myself; I was never such a huge fan that I'd fly to another country just for that. Now I kind of regret it.

I don't feel the same way. I'd feel pretty bad dropping that much cash if they were just using playback. But hey, I'm not judging anyone else's preference—if his dancing alone is enough for them, that's their business. For me, though, I really regret missing Queen with Freddie Mercury live. That would have been an incredible audio-visual experience. Plus, they released live albums (not just one, either).

Anyway, getting back to this "problem" of yours, you're just trolling about some playback nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual issue.

I provided verifiable information, yet you just keep rambling about things that are completely irrelevant. If you can't come up with anything better, then fine. ☕

I listen to that "One Night in Japan" and while hearing a classic performed LIVE is lovely, it's nowhere near the peak musical experience you get from studio albums! Guess why! ☕

I don't need to guess. The answer is right there in the links I posted earlier.
And "One Night in Japan" is just another unofficial DVD. So much for my trolling. 😉

uh oh ...
Michael Jackson - Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour DVD Studio Sony Music
Orig Year 1992
DVD Encoding Region 1
So much for the DIY skills of a certain troll!

"Uh oh"? I don't see the album listed there. Looks like you'll have to try again. Though I suspect you'll be happy to.

Actually, maybe we should move these posts about playback over to the music section... This is getting pretty off-topic...

Oh, for God's sake. This whole little rant about playback and what counts as an "album"—whatever that term actually means to you—is just a convenient excuse for me to give my two cents. And honestly, this isn't even specifically aimed at you. You clearly have all the answers already, anyway. Whatever.
You’re really going all out with the formatting and breaking up your posts—I assume that makes it more exciting for you? I can't tell if this is just your way of managing anxiety or if you think making your replies longer somehow makes your point look more significant. Honestly, it's probably both.

These pathetic attempts to devalue Michael Jackson’s music by constantly whining about the lack of an official live CD release are just shots fired into thin air. And let me say it one more time—that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual quality of the music.
Comparing the Rolling Stones to him is just as pointless as that Madonna comparison you brought up at the start of this thread—and I’m pretty sure I wasn't the one who said that!
The guy just wasn't offering that classic rock 'n' roll formula where the studio tracks and the live sets sound like two sides of the same coin. Honestly, sometimes the Rolling Stones sound better live than they do on record. They’re playing in completely different leagues! But clearly, you're just not seeing that.
What's the point of you getting the Live CD Jackson for you? It’s not even like you actually enjoy that kind of music.

Just because you don't see an "album" doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It’s really that simple. Just pop in a DVD, turn off the TV, and listen to Michael Jackson. Or, you know, just rip the audio to an MP3 and call it a day. 😉 )
Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with the Japan release. It’s solid. The only thing missing is that Sony stamp. 🙄 Honestly, if Michael Jackson were still around, there’s no way he would have ever let them release albums where the audio quality didn't match his studio standards. And for him, hitting that level of perfection wasn't just a goal—it was non-negotiable.
If that had actually been their goal during any of those tours, they could have just played the studio tracks and called it a day. Everyone would’ve just stood there yawning, clearly nodding along while they danced. It would have been way easier for them. 🙄

Just as a side note—the Rolling Stones actually sued someone in Germany back in the day, claiming they were using playback during their shows. Fast forward to the epilogue: the prosecutors lost the case completely. Not only did they walk away empty-handed, but they also had to cough up the legal fees and pay a fine for libel. And we're talking about people who were supposed to be music experts—basically professionals. 🤣 You bet I can!

We could really dive deeper into the whole playback situation with the music. We were talking about the film earlier, too. Honestly, that entire thread just feels unfinished—there’s so much left hanging. ☕

ruggedmarlin15 said:And then you go and give me this massive response... when I wasn't even asking for one. Seriously. 😉

I’ll leave you to compare Madonna to whoever you want, but at the end of the day, she's still your idol, isn't she?

Look, Velis, am I really a troll? It seems pretty obvious to me that your posts don't carry any real weight when you constantly resort to making things up.

You clearly have an issue with live performances! It’s pretty obvious. You seem to be bothered by the fact that "Live in Bucharest" isn't on a CD, but instead is "only" on DVD—where you actually get to see the performance along with the audio.

The DVD was released specifically because of the visuals. My only issue is that they're trying to sell me on a "concert experience" by focusing way too much on the choreography. playbackIt’s fine. Just give it another shot. And please, let's try to keep things calm. 😉

Just so you know—and I realize you're probably just trolling here—stars on the level of Michael Jackson don't typically release live albums as a way to offer a premium musical experience.

I have to disagree. U2, the Rolling Stones, and bands like them aren't exactly small-time stars... 🤦 Come on, don't embarrass yourself...

Alright, now you try to guess why! It’s actually the only one that comes bundled together with the video recording.

You might not get why, but sometimes you just have to scream. Just let it out. And don't get ahead of yourself—the fact that certain concerts only ever get released on DVD actually proves my point.

Here’s a solid comparison for you—"Tina Turner Live in Europe." It was recorded right when her career was hitting its absolute peak, but get this: it was actually filmed at a small club in New York City, Madison Square Garden (I actually know the venue personally and even caught another show there once!).

That's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I was wondering, how many concerts have you actually been to in your life, and which ones were they?

Honestly, I've been everywhere. First time was back in 1987, most recent was just last Friday. Everything from pop and rock to blues and electronic... but that’s beside the point here. It seems my points hit a little too close to home for you, because instead of actually countering my arguments, you're just throwing a tantrum without offering any real rebuttals. It's a bit much. I'm half expecting you to tell me your dad is stronger than mine next...

These condescending attitudes remind me so much of someone who's clearly never stepped foot in a concert venue... <cut>

Look, you can talk all you want, but you haven't actually disproven anything I've said. I'm stating facts, not being condescending. I don't really get why you're making these weak attempts at being off-topic on top of being off-topic. You're just wasting your time.

Well, I've never been to a Michael Jackson concert myself; I was never such a huge fan that I'd fly to another country just for that. Now I kind of regret it.

I don't feel the same way. I'd feel pretty bad dropping that much cash if they were just using playback. But hey, I'm not judging anyone else's preference—if his dancing alone is enough for them, that's their business. For me, though, I really regret missing Queen with Freddie Mercury live. That would have been an incredible audio-visual experience. Plus, they released live albums (not just one, either).

Anyway, getting back to this "problem" of yours, you're just trolling about some playback nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual issue.

I provided verifiable information, yet you just keep rambling about things that are completely irrelevant. If you can't come up with anything better, then fine. ☕

I listen to that "One Night in Japan" and while hearing a classic performed LIVE is lovely, it's nowhere near the peak musical experience you get from studio albums! Guess why! ☕

I don't need to guess. The answer is right there in the links I posted earlier.
And "One Night in Japan" is just another unofficial DVD. So much for my trolling. 😉

uh oh ...
Michael Jackson - Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour DVD Studio Sony Music
Orig Year 1992
DVD Encoding Region 1
So much for the DIY skills of a certain troll!

"Uh oh"? I don't see the album listed there. Looks like you'll have to try again. Though I suspect you'll be happy to.

Actually, maybe we should move these posts about playback over to the music section... This is getting pretty off-topic...

Good grief! This whole trolling routine regarding playback and what counts as a medium for releasing music (whatever your definition of an "album" happens to be) is just an excuse for my long-winded "reply." It’s not just aimed at you. You clearly have all the answers anyway! whatever
You seem particularly obsessed with breaking down posts into tiny pieces—presumably because it makes it more exciting for you. Is that just how you deal with nerves, or do you think making your replies look more significant by padding them out works? Honestly, it's probably both.

Your pathetic attempts to devalue Michael Jackson's musical quality by constantly harping on the fact that there isn't an official live CD release are totally pointless. I'll say it again: it has absolutely nothing to do with the music.
Comparing the Rolling Stones to him is just as nonsensical as that Madonna comparison you threw out at the start of this thread (which wasn't even my fault!).
The guy simply didn't follow the classic rock'n'roll formula where the live show sounds almost identical to the studio recording. Sometimes the Rolling Stones even sound better live. They are playing in completely different leagues! But clearly, that's lost on you.
And why do you even care about a Live CD Jackson? It's not even your style of music!

And just because you don't "see" an album doesn't mean one doesn't exist—just pop in a DVD, turn off the TV, and listen to Michael! Or just rip it to an MP3 😉.
Besides, that release from Japan is actually solid, aside from lacking the Sony stamp 🙄. Michael Jackson would likely never have agreed to release anything that didn't meet his studio production standards. In his case, hitting those levels was practically impossible.
If they had actually wanted to do that on any tour, they could have just played the studio master tracks and everyone could have just yawned and—obviously—danced. It would have been easier! 🙄

(As a side note—the Rolling Stones were once accused of using playback during concerts in Germany. The aftermath? The prosecutors lost and actually had to pay the legal costs and a fine for libel. And those people were supposed to be music experts—can you believe it? 🤣 as if!
)
☕ You really should stick to talking about playback in the context of music. We were talking about a film here. And the whole story remains unfinished and largely misunderstood!

ruggedmarlin15 said:You can keep arguing until the day after tomorrow, but my point remains.
The bottom line is, Michael Jackson never released an official live album.
And just think about why Live in Bucharest wasn't released on CD. ☕
We'll probably see a flood of stuff coming out soon that Michael Jackson would never have authorized in his lifetime. And there's a reason for that.
You can also read about it here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8103113AAlJEyQ
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Michael_Jackson_lip_sync
http://www.elvis-collectors.com/foru...hp?f=2&t=46672

Well, One Night in Japan was released, so much for that argument.

That's an unofficial release. Something I could have put out myself. So there.

Here is everything he actually released; go ahead and find one live album that isn't a bootleg:
http://www.discogs.com/artist/Michael+Jackson
I mean legitimate releases from Sony, Epic Records, or any other major label.

Which actually has nothing to do with recordings of rehearsals, tuning up, practicing moves, choreography, lighting, etc., or even less to do with music videos for singles and such.

Whoops, I'm getting the impression you don't really know the subject matter, but I'm sorry if I bruised your fandom. It's just a shame it's clouding your vision. And your hearing.

I didn't come here to ruin anyone's mood, but I'm happy to answer when people jump in without thinking things through. Like I said, I don't know why he used playback because he didn't need to. He had an amazing voice. I suggest we stop off-topic chatting and keep things focused on the review. Personally, I thought the film was okay, but nothing spectacular. It's basically a montage of several rehearsals edited together. Maybe they should have included more commentary or interviews from the people involved in the project, but what can you do...

And don't get too discouraged; here are some stories about Michael Jackson from people who actually worked with him:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...ous-album.html
Everyone seems to be singing Michael Jackson's praises lately. There are actually some pretty great stories about him floating around out there. So, I figured I'd share. Enjoy. 🙂

🙄 Honestly, I think you’re just a troll who latched onto a topic that isn't even remotely interesting. Nobody's taking you seriously here. Personally, I don't get much out of trolls posting dead-end threads; I'd much rather see stuff that actually sparks some imagination. As for this nonsense about live playback—all it does is give people an itch they can't scratch. 🤣

I’m not exactly a die-hard Michael Jackson fan myself, but I have a soft spot for good music in general. You can go ahead and compare her to whoever you want if that's your thing—she’s clearly your idol, right? But honestly, she’s hardly a benchmark for any real comparison. Unless, of course, you think she’s worth mentioning just because she was the first one to jump at the chance to perform a tribute concert for Michael Jackson, acting all high-strung while she hums along and poses around the stage. 🤣 ☕

You clearly have an issue with live recordings. It’s obvious. You seem genuinely bothered that "Live in Bucharest" isn't on a CD, but instead lives on a DVD where you actually get video to go along with the audio. That's a massive problem for you, apparently. Honestly, I don't think you even know what you're trying to say. You get high-quality sound and visuals so you can actually study the performance—you can tell exactly when it's a playback versus when it's a raw, live moment—and somehow that's the issue? If that's your grievance, you're looking at the wrong problem entirely.
Just for your information—and look, I know you’re just trolling, but whatever—major stars, the kind of legends like Michael Jackson, don't usually bother dropping live albums as a premier musical experience. Go ahead, take a guess as to why. It’s almost always because they only bundle that stuff together with a video recording.
Here’s a solid comparison for you—"Tina Turner Live in Europe." It was recorded right when she was at the absolute peak of her career, but get this: it was filmed in a tiny club in New York City, at Madison Square Garden (I actually know the venue personally and caught another show there once!).
Michael Jackson never actually performed a concert like that in front of just a thousand people—and honestly? It’s a damn shame. A total waste. But look, he was still playing in a different league entirely, even if the people running his show weren't exactly on his wavelength.
Most of Tina Turner's other live shows were just standard DVD releases—you know, stuff like Live in Rio or her New York City sets.

I’m curious—how many concerts have you actually been to in your life? Which ones? These condescending takes remind me way too much of that one guy who’s never stepped foot in a venue, doesn't travel for shows, hasn't even seen a local band play in a dive bar, yet somehow acts like an expert on everything. 🙄 So, there was this one time, right after I got back from seeing Tina Turner live in Vienna—which was, uh, what was it... 1989?—and he later went on about it: "What can that old lady even sing anymore?" 🙄 😂 Clearly, he stayed stuck in his own little bubble, totally convinced he was right. Meanwhile, Tina Turner went out and absolutely crushed it across all of Europe again this year. Even twenty years later, she’s still untouchable.

Look, I never actually went to a Michael Jackson concert. I was never such a die-hard fanatic that I’d hop on a plane to another country just for that. Now? I’m feeling a little bit of regret.

But anyway, getting back to this "problem" you're stressing over—you're clearly just trolling about some playback issue that doesn't even make sense.
I’ve been listening to "One Night in Japan," and sure, hearing live classics is nice, but let’s be real: it’s nowhere near the peak musical experience you get from the studio albums.
Want to guess why? ☕

uh oh ...
Michael Jackson - Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour DVD Studio Sony Music
Orig Year 1992
DVD Encoding Region 1

That's all the "expert analysis" you're getting from a troll!

ruggedmarlin15 said:

Why do people think someone can't sing the way they used to?

You're just making things up now, much like the media outlets you rely on. It’s not a good look.
I have to say, I’m a little surprised by the selection. Playback It’s pretty obvious he had the voice for it, even just listening to those rehearsal recordings. There’s really no other way to look at it.
You don't even have to go far; just a quick Google search or a look on YouTube will give you everything you need. MJ used to sing live during a lot of his previous tours, too. Playback.
So, what we saw in the film wasn't some kind of freak occurrence. As for his actual motivations, I can only speculate.
And one more thing... How is it possible that MJ never released a single one? live Are we talking about an album? Do you want me to guess, or should I just draw it out for you? 😉

Why does everything have to be playback when it already sounds just as good as the studio album? -.-

Fair point. Even if they sound similar, they aren't exactly the same thing as what you hear on the album.

Maybe he used a playback track for one or two things, but there's no way he was using it for eight.

To start things off, here are three: TDCAU, Smooth Criminal (minus that iconic "You've been hit by, you've been struck by—a smooth criminal" line), and Thriller. We can keep going from there...

🙄 Look, maybe you should try using a search engine or checking YouTube yourself instead of lecturing everyone else on how they don't know how to use a search bar. 🙄 Jeez.

But hey, let me help you out here— Live in Bucharest : The Dangerous tour was released while he was still around! 😁 You've got both audio and video there, so go ahead and compare it to the studio tracks if that's such a huge deal to you. 🙄

Oh, and now there's also LIVE in Japan, so there's that. None of this actually has anything to do with rehearsal footage, soundchecks, practicing choreography, lighting setups, or music videos for singles.

Good grief. ☕

gentleseal23 said:@crimsonstag59 : solid post 🙂 really gives you something to chew on.
Anyway, I’ve scrolled through like 75,000 videos debating whether he actually passed away or not, seeing all sorts of evidence claiming he's still out there, and honestly, the whole thing is just fascinating and makes you think. To be real, if anyone was ever going to fake their own death, it would be MJ. I’m not saying he was crazy or anything weird, but the pressure he was under from every single direction was insane, especially with the media absolutely wrecking his life with their nonsense, twisting his image until everyone turned on him and created all those haters.

Why does everyone assume he can't sing like he used to?
(Not just talking about you, 😉) Why does everything have to be Playback if it sounds just as incredible as the studio album? -.-
Maybe he used Playback for two things, but there's no way it was for eight.

That series is easily the best one yet, even if there are plenty of xxxx out there. 😁 If you actually sit down and dig into that film—and I don't just mean looking at the visuals, but doing a deep dive into the actual subtext—you can come up with some pretty mind-blowing conclusions. Honestly, the part of this whole saga that sticks with me most is the tragedy of those kids who took their own lives after hearing the news about their idol's passing. It’s heavy stuff. To get a real sense of the madness, you have to look at the contrast: you've got this tidal wave of hysteria and endless tears from the fans, pitted against the complete, chilling indifference of the families at the memorial service, where you wouldn't see a single tear. Of course, there was plenty of overacting and theatrical nonsense thrown in there too, just like you'd expect.

It’s the truth. The sheer amount of pressure he was under—between all those lawsuits and the public disgrace when they were trying to tear him down (Sony?)—most people would have snapped or just given up entirely. Very few could handle that kind of heat without losing their minds.
People who don't actually listen to his music—those who just judge everything based on surface-level aesthetics—aren't going to get it. Until they stop looking at the packaging and actually acknowledge the sheer quality of his songwriting and live performances, they’re just missing the point.
Sure, he was an eccentric. But that’s exactly why he worked. Honestly, it’s not even all that surprising when you look at people with that kind of talent. History is full of them, and we still see them popping up today. Take someone like Pogorelić—most Americans would probably just write him off as some crazy weirdo, yet he’s one of the most powerful musicians on the planet. At the end of the day, how a person looks or how they live their life is one thing, but what they actually create and pour into a performance? That's what really counts.
Michael undeniably dropped some absolute masterpieces. Even now, I run into people who couldn't stand him back in the day, yet here they are, buying his albums. They can't help but realize the sheer quality we're talking about—the vocals, the production, the songwriting, the lyrics... it's all top-tier stuff.

Why does everyone act like he suddenly lost his touch? People love to claim he can't hit those notes like he used to, as if vocal cords are some kind of finite battery that just runs out. It’s the same old story—people see a little bit of aging and immediately decide the magic is gone. They forget how much work goes into maintaining that level of performance. It’s like watching an elite athlete in their late thirties and complaining they aren't sprinting quite as fast as they were at twenty. Give me a break.
Why does everything have to be playback anyway? If they can make it sound just as good as the studio album, what's the big deal? -.-
Maybe he used a playback track for two songs, sure, but there's no way he was faking eight.

Whatever. 😉 People trying to draw parallels between Madonna and him don't really have much of a leg to stand on. Honestly, they’d be better off just putting a studio track next to a live recording and actually listening for those infamous instances of lip-syncing. 🙄

Honestly, they should just go watch Tina Turner back in the 70s, tearing up the stage during her Alive set at the arena in Arnheim. If they haven't had the chance to actually witness that kind of energy with their own eyes and ears in person, they're seriously missing out.
It all comes down to the fact that Black performers just have a different level of grit when it comes to live execution—and that goes way beyond just the music. Take James Brown, for example; he wasn't out there relying on backing tracks right before he passed. Even Chuck Berry wasn't doing the playback thing back in the late 70s. It’s just a different caliber of performance. ☕

driftingeagle27 said:Whose, though? It's not like those people knew he was actually going to die, so why would they be out there interviewing him every single day?

Look, 🙂it’s all scripted. They knew everything! 😉Mikey didn't actually die, and he certainly wasn't murdered!
In reality, they just killed off his symbol—his name. The man was simply scrubbed from the stage, and that's that. This Is It!

If you take the time—and I mean really sit down and study those clips—once the initial hype dies down and you watch certain segments of that film, you'll see a mountain of inconsistencies and obvious editing.
Just one tiny detail: there's a shot where he (or maybe a lookalike?) is sitting at the mixing console with straight, thick hair, but then later on stage, he (or another lookalike?) shows up with long, curly hair!

I’d strongly suggest actual fans check out some of the great documentaries on this topic and just think about it. There are several theories floating around, but the most plausible one is that the whole thing was orchestrated by his family. There is no way—not any sane or healthy person—could pull off 50 (FIFTY!) consecutive concerts. Even if he was just dancing. (The idea that he used playback is nonsense. He was a world-class musician; he wouldn't subject himself to that kind of embarrassment. Using body doubles for privacy is a different story entirely).
Doing 50 shows is pure madness. That’s why they set up this whole strategy of filming rehearsals—using top-tier audio and video tech—specifically for a movie. A movie that has already raked in millions of dollars. And let's be honest, it isn't even a real documentary. It's absurd, right? And the money will just keep rolling in through merch, DVDs, memorabilia, rights, old CDs, and so on... Plus, he left behind hundreds of finished tracks ready for production and release. Etc...

Basically, he gets to live in peace, far away from the public eye and all the vultures that spent his entire life picking him clean.

Another theory from the conspiracy crowd is that he was removed—not necessarily killed, necessarily—by people he crossed. Was it Sony, the label he had so many issues with? They are one of the most powerful forces in the global entertainment industry. So... just think about it! 😛

Either way, go watch:

Michael Jackson's Death: Media Hoax Part 1
There are 14 parts in total—definitely worth a watch!!! Jonell star TV
This Is It!
Though even there, we won't find out who the guy calling 911 actually was. Think about it! 😉