This Is It (2009)

crimsonstag59 said:🙄 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!

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...

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: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 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!

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

Could someone delete the extra one? Thanks!

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?

Look, you guys are totally off-topic—either take the bickering to the DMs or just get back to talking about music, because this thread is already dead... and honestly, I doubt anyone besides you two is even reading this. 😳 😁
No hard feelings, it just gets annoying seeing people go back and forth like this forever—I try my best not to do it myself. 😬
Anyway, I went to see it again and it was actually even better and more intense this time—I’m definitely going back at least twice more since they extended the run by another week. You really won't regret going, even if you aren't a huge fan. And for those of you who hate it? You'll never go, and you'll never know what you missed. :P
I'm just looking for potential victims to join me for another viewing—I can tell you, the five people I've dragged along so far have thanked me for it. Only two of them were actual fans. 🙂
😍 Michael Jackson 😍

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!

Setting aside whether he actually pulled it off or not—on record or otherwise—the movie itself isn't exactly a masterpiece. It honestly could have been so much better. But the real kicker? The creators are going to walk away with millions upon millions, regardless of how good the final product actually is.

crimsonstag59 said: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!

Look, bringing up my concert history really should have served some kind of purpose. It was "just" that.

Just because you can't find something on Google doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It’s not like Google is all-knowing, regardless of what you might think. Honestly, if you actually took the time to research your topic before posting, you'd know what you're talking about. 😉 Go ahead and ask someone, but maybe try doing it away from the computer for once!

I asked you directly which one you actually went to see. You don't know. That’s all there is to it. 🤣

Maybe try looking through some old magazines or books? You should be able to find something if you dig around. It hasn't been that long—maybe ten years or so—so just keep searching.

Look, you can't provide any actual facts, and there isn't anything about them online—not even on the sites dedicated to their history as a group. So, it's pretty reasonable to assume this is just another one of your fabrications. It’s no surprise you’re trying to backpedal now, though it's clearly not working. 😉

Honestly, everything has just become so incredibly tedious—it’s enough to drive anyone crazy. It's time to just call it quits, take a breather, and stop relying on the playback once and for all.

You should probably take a look at those links. It’s a smart move—you're definitely making progress. 😉 It’s a shame you didn't get around to answering any of my questions, though I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Honestly, I think it would be hardest for someone like you to just admit, "I don't know, I'm making this up." I totally get where you're coming from.

@Malena:
I agree, though it feels like this is just the natural way things play out. Now that Michael Jackson is gone, everyone surrounding him is probably going to try and cash in as much as they can. We’re likely going to see a lot more leaks and hear a lot more rumors... Michael Jackson recorded an incredible amount of material that hasn't seen the light of day yet. And honestly, it doesn't all have to be bad stuff. So, there might actually be something to look forward to.

So, here's the bottom line on everything we've talked about so far:

The movie is killer. Go watch it.

driftingeagle27 said:So, here's the bottom line on everything we've talked about so far:

The movie is killer. Go watch it.

Wait, aren't you getting paid to hype this thing up? 🙄 Just let people say what they actually think.

Man, they’re actually paying me to hype up that Paranormal Activity movie, but I’m just slacking off and promoting this instead. Don't tell anyone.

The concert was incredible... But seriously—the whole time I felt like I was at an actual live show, not sitting in a movie theater... 😍

I almost stood up and started dancing myself.. 🤣

Writing this while my thoughts are still "fresh."
Watched this film yesterday—a documentary, a concert... I'm not quite sure how to categorize it.

I went to the theater purely out of curiosity. To be honest, I walked in loaded with prejudices, ready to condemn what looked like a messy, unorganized concert from the jump. I fully expected to suffer through two hours of watching some half-dead guy—exhausted, drained of all life. I thought someone would have to hold the microphone for him while he stood on stage, drugged out like a puppet, staring into space while a playback track did all the singing!

It’s not that I’m a massive fan of his music—though I own every single one of his albums—but I’m not the type of person who travels abroad just to catch a show. I understand his reggaeton and his dancing much better.
That was actually the main reason I went to see the film. I wanted to see what was left of that dance virtuoso who, even at 85, could pull off body isolations like nobody else.

And I have to admit, I am completely blown away. My girlfriend and I agreed that it’s a genuine tragedy the concert wasn't held live. What fascinated me most was seeing a man in his 50s, who has clearly been 100% worn down by life, still dancing like he's 20 years old. The body isolations... that moonwalk... combined with those classic songs... at one point, several people actually stood up and started dancing right there in the theater.
It was just too good. I seriously recommend everyone go see this concert!

John Perez13 said:Writing this while my thoughts are still "fresh."
Watched this film yesterday—a documentary, a concert... I'm not quite sure how to categorize it.

I went to the theater purely out of curiosity. To be honest, I walked in loaded with prejudices, ready to condemn what looked like a messy, unorganized concert from the jump. I fully expected to suffer through two hours of watching some half-dead guy—exhausted, drained of all life. I thought someone would have to hold the microphone for him while he stood on stage, drugged out like a puppet, staring into space while a playback track did all the singing!

It’s not that I’m a massive fan of his music—though I own every single one of his albums—but I’m not the type of person who travels abroad just to catch a show. I understand his reggaeton and his dancing much better.
That was actually the main reason I went to see the film. I wanted to see what was left of that dance virtuoso who, even at 85, could pull off body isolations like nobody else.

And I have to admit, I am completely blown away. My girlfriend and I agreed that it’s a genuine tragedy the concert wasn't held live. What fascinated me most was seeing a man in his 50s, who has clearly been 100% worn down by life, still dancing like he's 20 years old. The body isolations... that moonwalk... combined with those classic songs... at one point, several people actually stood up and started dancing right there in the theater.
It was just too good. I seriously recommend everyone go see this concert!

I second that.
I went in with zero expectations, just stumbled upon it, and ended up completely stunned.
The way he moves, the way he sings, the sheer intensity he brings to the music—it’s incredible. And the sound quality? Flawless. This film is definitely worth your time.

I have completely changed my mind about that man.

Michael Jackson: "We give the love back to the audience."

@ruggedmarlin15 honestly, dropping a 'live' album tells me absolutely zero about an artist's actual talent 🤷 I have no clue what your point is or what you're even trying to get at by claiming MJ didn't release 'live' albums because I don't see how that connects to anything, so are you implying he was always lip-syncing and therefore there was no point in releasing live albums since they'd sound identical to the studio versions, or something else entirely..? 🤷
He released concert DVDs, which is honestly way better than just putting out a live CD.
Look, I'm a huge MJ fan and I've watched countless videos, concerts, live performances, and interviews... and the only time he ever used playback was during the HIStory tour because he was dealing with laryngitis, so he didn't just cancel shows, he just performed certain songs partially on playback.
And why on earth would you think a good chunk of the songs in the movie were performed on playback? 🤷
Do you seriously believe Michael Jackson would ever allow himself to be embarrassed by lip-syncing during his final concerts?
The guy was a total perfectionist who gave everything he had, so in that film, he maybe used playback for a maximum of three songs, not eight like you're claiming! 😂 Besides, there are over 100 hours of rehearsal footage available, and just because some clips of Jam are integrated into the film using playback doesn't mean he sang Jam on playback every single time, you know? 🙂

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say with these posts or this whole thing about him 'not releasing' live CDs (😕 and I really don't get why you think concert DVDs aren't enough).

gentleseal23 said:@ruggedmarlin15 honestly, dropping a 'live' album tells me absolutely zero about an artist's actual talent 🤷 I have no clue what your point is or what you're even trying to get at by claiming MJ didn't release 'live' albums because I don't see how that connects to anything, so are you implying he was always lip-syncing and therefore there was no point in releasing live albums since they'd sound identical to the studio versions, or something else entirely..? 🤷
He released concert DVDs, which is honestly way better than just putting out a live CD.
Look, I'm a huge MJ fan and I've watched countless videos, concerts, live performances, and interviews... and the only time he ever used playback was during the HIStory tour because he was dealing with laryngitis, so he didn't just cancel shows, he just performed certain songs partially on playback.
And why on earth would you think a good chunk of the songs in the movie were performed on playback? 🤷
Do you seriously believe Michael Jackson would ever allow himself to be embarrassed by lip-syncing during his final concerts?
The guy was a total perfectionist who gave everything he had, so in that film, he maybe used playback for a maximum of three songs, not eight like you're claiming! 😂 Besides, there are over 100 hours of rehearsal footage available, and just because some clips of Jam are integrated into the film using playback doesn't mean he sang Jam on playback every single time, you know? 🙂

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say with these posts or this whole thing about him 'not releasing' live CDs (😕 and I really don't get why you think concert DVDs aren't enough).

Sorry, I didn't mention that he ALWAYS sang in... I haven't had much of a chance to sit down and listen to the playback yet, but I'm planning to get through it soon. It’s been a busy few days, so things are moving a little slower than I'd hoped. I'll share my thoughts once I've actually given it a proper listen.But man, if he had performed that just one more time... I've been thinking about how much I enjoy just sitting back and hitting playback on my favorite tracks. There’s something incredibly grounding about letting a song take over. Sometimes I find myself lost in the rhythm, just letting everything else fade away. It’s a simple pleasure, but it really helps me reset after a long day.That’s all there is to it. Why is it that whenever someone runs out of actual arguments, they just resort to putting words in people's mouths?

He chose to release live concerts on DVD, which I think is a much better move than just putting out a standard live CD.

If you’re looking for a visual experience, then it’s definitely worth checking out.

I’m a huge Michael Jackson fan, and I’ve spent countless hours diving into his videos, live concerts, performances, and interviews. From what I understand, he only had to rely on backing tracks during the HIStory tour because he was dealing with laryngitis.

That’s not quite right, but honestly, I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. As far as I'm concerned, you can believe that he never sang a single note in his life. I've been thinking about playback lately. It’s funny how much we take the seamless experience of hearing music exactly as it was intended for granted. When you really sit down to listen, you realize how much work goes into making sure everything sounds right. Sometimes I feel like I don't quite have the ear for it, but I'm trying to learn more about what makes a high-quality setup actually worth the investment.That’s your call. Everything is fine on my end.

He didn't actually cancel the concert; he just performed some of the songs using backing tracks.

Can you share a link that actually backs that up? I’ve already looked through several sources that claim the exact opposite, so I'm really just looking for a solid counterargument to help me understand where you're coming from.

Why do you think having those songs performed as playback in the movie actually works? 🤷

Because that's just what I heard. To be more specific: if you listen during rehearsals and hear vocals that sound identical to the studio version—including all those little sighs and vocal flourishes—then you know exactly what's going on. hee-heeSo, what’s your take—do you think they can actually pull it off live?

Do you honestly think Michael Jackson would have ever allowed himself to face that kind of embarrassment by relying on lip-syncing during his final concerts?

Michael had no idea those would end up being his final performances. It’s strange to think about, especially considering how he used to perform on... I’ve been thinking about playback lately. It’s one of those things that seems straightforward until you actually get into the weeds of it. Sometimes I feel like I should have a better handle on how to manage the flow, but I always seem to stumble over the small details. Does anyone else feel that way, or am I just overthinking the whole process?Honestly, I don't see any reason why not right now. If I recall correctly, Akon mentioned that Michael Jackson wasn't going to perform live during the This is IT tour—and that's coming from someone who actually worked alongside him.
Anyway, do you remember this:
I just stumbled upon this video, and I honestly can't stop thinking about it. It’s one of those pieces that really makes you pause and reflect on everything. There's something about the way it's presented that feels so raw and genuine—it doesn't feel like it's trying too hard to grab your attention, which is exactly why it works. I know I can be a bit overly analytical sometimes, but I found myself sitting there just soaking in the message. It hits home in a way that's hard to put into words. Has anyone else seen this yet? I'd love to hear what you all think, though I suspect we might all have slightly different takes on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l74Y_p6or00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PAJqgeeJf4
It's all playback here, though he does sing a few lines live occasionally.

In the movie, he only used playback for a maximum of three songs.

Wait, why?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN EIGHT?!

He did TDCAU, Smooth Criminal, Thriller, Earth song (except for the transitions), man in The Mirror, plus a few others where he blended recorded vocals with live singing. You said three? Oh, definitely not.

Besides, there are over 100 hours of rehearsal footage available. Just because they integrated studio tracks for Jam into the film doesn't mean he sang it that way every single time. You get what I'm saying? 🙂

That also doesn't necessarily mean he was singing Jam live in those unreleased clips. See my point? 🙂

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say with these posts.

Just what I mentioned in my first post. As a fan who really values hearing live vocals, I'd much rather spend my money on a movie ticket than a concert ticket if part of the set is just playback. I'm not saying those kinds of shows aren't amazing—everyone is entitled to their opinion. That's why I don't get why everyone is getting so worked up. This is a forum. It's a place for different (and often conflicting) perspectives.

I actually went to see the movie twice all by myself and... oh my, I absolutely loved it! I felt things I have truly never experienced before in my entire life—it was supernatural, just overflowing with emotion. Everything was swirling together inside me: sadness, awe, pure wonder, joy, sheer DELIGHT, and just total amazement... 🙏

That man gave 200% to absolutely everything he ever touched! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙏

Words really can't capture the way Michael Jackson moves me... the King... 🙏

Hey... so I watched the movie right when it dropped, but that’s not really the point here. I was actually having a little wager with this one MJ fan, and he’s out here claiming his favorite track wasn't even... well, I totally disagree, so I figured I'd check in with you guys who actually know your stuff. Tell me, is it Dirty Diana????? It was all on the line, so there it is...