Michael Jackson

[RussTCB]

The theater itself is pretty goddamn cool. The sides of the stage, the aisles, the ceiling everything in between are used.

The show actually starts right when you enter the theater. There are "paparazzi" running around getting in everyone's face taking pictures. Pointing and yelling at people from across the theater, then running, jumping over seats and stuff to get to them. A while later, the pictures started showing up on the video walls as tabloid covers. It was pretty damn cool.

As for the show itself, it's got a pretty loose story line involved 4 young people trying to get some "MJ artifacts"; glasses, hat, glove and shoes. Through the course of a bunch of songs, they eventually got them all. Each one of them becomes awesome at dance when they finally get the artifacts.

The big surprise of the show is an incredible MJ hologram that forms after all 4 have their artifacts. A ton of gold dust appears on all the huge screens and eventually settles on the ground in the middle of the 4 of them. It builds MJ from the feet up and he performs Man In the Mirror standing with 2 of them on either side. They pull it off very well and it looks like he's standing there.

They do some awesome effects during it too like he puts his arm around them here and again or lifts their chins up to sing to them. It really looks like he's touching them and it leaves some gold dust on them when he touches them. It's hard to describe, but hopefully you're getting my point.

There were other awesome effects too like when they made it snow during Stranger In Moscow. I don't mean plastic snow, I mean like snow machines in the ceiling shooting a LOT of snow on the crowd.

The song list was excellent. I'm sure this isn't everything, but what I can remember is:

Beat It
Stranger In Moscow
Bad
Can You Feel It
Billie Jean
I'll Be There

Black Or White
They Don't Care About Us
Smile

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'

Jam

Smooth Criminal
Speechless
Man In The Mirror
The Way You Make Me Feel
Earth Song

They only complaint I would even say is that sometimes there was too much going on. The opening number for example had probably 30 dancers on stage, the video screens going, people performing in the aisles and acrobats on stage and over the crowd. If nothing else, you were sometimes confused as to where to look.

I would pay to see it again in a heartbeat and I really think Michael would be proud of it.

For anyone interested, here's some thoughts on the Michael Jackson ONE by Cirque show that I saw in Vegas last week. I'm going to spoiler tag the whole thing for anyone who might see it and not have something spoiled: Edited September 12, 2013 by russtcb

[MB.]

My 16 year old stepson could not name one song of The Beatles, The Stones or Elvis. (I am already working on it)

He could name some MJ and Tupac songs though.

Edited September 12, 2013 by MBRose

[DieselDaisy]

Ok guys, calm down. Both MJ and Elvis are in the pantheon of legends. You are splitting hairs on who was better, its all subjective anyways.

I completely agree but I am not really arguing about 'who is better?'. I just find the notion that ''the average joe knows Jackson's songs more than Elvis's'' completely untrue. How then do you account for Elvis's far superior chart success? When I was growing up I got the complete music education so it was, Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles - and yes, Jackson (Bad era, i.e. pre-sex abuse case when Jackson was basically considered a god). I could not imagine somebody growing up and not knowing King Creole; where have you been living if that is the case?

For the record both Elvis and MJ come up short when compared to the beatles anyways. It's like arguing who finished second in a race. At the end of the day, neither won the race.

I am the biggest Beatles fan but there is just something about the first generation of rock n' roll (Elvis, Chuck etc) which I prefer. More attitude, more grease. Cooler image (Lennon's coolest image was when he was a ted in hamburg). It is purer music. Maybe it is the big hollow bodied guitars? Beautiful instruments.

[Johnny Drama]

My 16 year old stepson could not name one song of The Beatles, The Stones or Elvis. (I am already working on it)

He could name some MJ and Tupac songs though.

Sort that out quick.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Ok guys, calm down. Both MJ and Elvis are in the pantheon of legends. You are splitting hairs on who was better, its all subjective anyways.

I completely agree but I am not really arguing about 'who is better?'. I just find the notion that ''the average joe knows Jackson's songs more than Elvis's'' completely untrue. How then do you account for Elvis's far superior chart success? When I was growing up I got the complete music education so it was, Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles - and yes, Jackson (Bad era, i.e. pre-sex abuse case when Jackson was basically considered a god). I could not imagine somebody growing up and not knowing King Creole; where have you been living if that is the case?

For the record both Elvis and MJ come up short when compared to the beatles anyways. It's like arguing who finished second in a race. At the end of the day, neither won the race.

I am the biggest Beatles fan but there is just something about the first generation of rock n' roll (Elvis, Chuck etc) which I prefer. More attitude, more grease. Cooler image (Lennon's coolest image was when he was a ted in hamburg). It is purer music. Maybe it is the big hollow bodied guitars? Beautiful instruments.

To each their own, but the beatles were better than their 50's counterparts in all the important ways. One of my guitar professors in college made the point that "blackbird is a perfect song". That coming from a man that studies classical music and is a conducter of an orchastra. You won't hear the same sort of praise for Elvis or any other 50's era guy.

My point? The beatles appealed to everyone from mozart fans to elvis fans. They could write beautiful pieces and fun rock n roll.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Ok guys, calm down. Both MJ and Elvis are in the pantheon of legends. You are splitting hairs on who was better, its all subjective anyways.

I completely agree but I am not really arguing about 'who is better?'. I just find the notion that ''the average joe knows Jackson's songs more than Elvis's'' completely untrue. How then do you account for Elvis's far superior chart success? When I was growing up I got the complete music education so it was, Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles - and yes, Jackson (Bad era, i.e. pre-sex abuse case when Jackson was basically considered a god). I could not imagine somebody growing up and not knowing King Creole; where have you been living if that is the case?

For the record both Elvis and MJ come up short when compared to the beatles anyways. It's like arguing who finished second in a race. At the end of the day, neither won the race.

I am the biggest Beatles fan but there is just something about the first generation of rock n' roll (Elvis, Chuck etc) which I prefer. More attitude, more grease. Cooler image (Lennon's coolest image was when he was a ted in hamburg). It is purer music. Maybe it is the big hollow bodied guitars? Beautiful instruments.

To each their own, but the beatles were better than their 50's counterparts in all the important ways. One of my guitar professors in college made the point that "blackbird is a perfect song". That coming from a man that studies classical music and is a conducter of an orchastra. You won't hear the same sort of praise for Elvis or any other 50's era guy.

My point? The beatles appealed to everyone from mozart fans to elvis fans. They could write beautiful pieces and fun rock n roll.

You will hear the same for 50s guys, in fact with Chuck Berry you'll hear higher praise. For example, creating a format, that two string rhythm stuff, the little licks in between punctuating the lyrics, the entire blueprint for rock n roll was not only laid out but perfected by Chuck Berry. I dare you or anybody to show me someone who did rock n roll as good, as clean, as crisp and as nuanced as Chuck Berry, anybody, just one guitarist or singer/songwriter or whoever.

There was a hardness and an authenticity to their sound that no one of the British lot could properly nail...and they admit to it too. And that extends to the blues as well, i mean, Howlin Wolf vs The Rolling Stones? No competition.

Edited September 13, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Iron MikeyJ]

I agree that the 50's guys can do "purer" rock n roll than the beatles. But the beatles can still do it damn well, and the beatles could do a lot of things the 50's guys couldn't. That was my point. They were a lot more versitile.

As good as chuck was, he was a one trick pony. Same for little richard, elvis, all those guys.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Mike420

[Guest Len B'stard]

Oh no doubt, The Beatles could bash the fuckin' balls off a rockin' track too. One thing i never got from all The Stones-ites that they're like, oh The Beatles couldn't rock, fuck me have you heard them do Rock n Roll Music or Roll Over Beethoven?!?!

Also, Chuck Berry was fucking versatile man, he just liked and played a specific thing but he could do Jazz, he could do blues, he had the skills there it's just his own thing was so much incredible and so iconic and so much of him that doing other styles for him would be like...i dunno, what would you do it for?

Elvis though, one trick pony? Gospel, Blues, Rock n Roll, Country, Ballads, Elvis was not a one trick pony. Little Richard? You got a point.

Broadly speaking though i see what you mean and I agree I mean, you ain't gonna see a lot of Mr Kite type stuff out of Carl Perkins or whatever A lot of what passes for innovative stuff is often very peripheral and sometimes a sort of blind alley, like a dabblers thing y'know? People tend to revert to their roots soon enough, it's still highly commendable though and in the case of The Beatles, fucking mind-blowing.

[DieselDaisy]

Ok guys, calm down. Both MJ and Elvis are in the pantheon of legends. You are splitting hairs on who was better, its all subjective anyways.

I completely agree but I am not really arguing about 'who is better?'. I just find the notion that ''the average joe knows Jackson's songs more than Elvis's'' completely untrue. How then do you account for Elvis's far superior chart success? When I was growing up I got the complete music education so it was, Elvis, Hendrix, Beatles - and yes, Jackson (Bad era, i.e. pre-sex abuse case when Jackson was basically considered a god). I could not imagine somebody growing up and not knowing King Creole; where have you been living if that is the case?

For the record both Elvis and MJ come up short when compared to the beatles anyways. It's like arguing who finished second in a race. At the end of the day, neither won the race.

I am the biggest Beatles fan but there is just something about the first generation of rock n' roll (Elvis, Chuck etc) which I prefer. More attitude, more grease. Cooler image (Lennon's coolest image was when he was a ted in hamburg). It is purer music. Maybe it is the big hollow bodied guitars? Beautiful instruments.

To each their own, but the beatles were better than their 50's counterparts in all the important ways. One of my guitar professors in college made the point that "blackbird is a perfect song". That coming from a man that studies classical music and is a conducter of an orchastra. You won't hear the same sort of praise for Elvis or any other 50's era guy.

My point? The beatles appealed to everyone from mozart fans to elvis fans. They could write beautiful pieces and fun rock n roll.

There is just something about the originals. I love it. I will agree that '50s rock n' roll is a lot more, routed, in a particular musical style (blues based 3 chords, dududu). The Beatles expanded that songwriting style and turned it into, Schubert or Beethoven. And then you had the advances in the studio also, pairing a rock song with orchestration, the development of the 'concept' album. I agree about this, and in many ways the 60s acts were better than he '50s guys.

But, there is just something about the originals. I can only give you the reasons why I love it more. I love Berry's word play. And I love that unshameless teenager 'americana': cadillacs, jukeboxes, diners etc. For someone growing up in the north of Britain, it has a certain escapist value. I also love the raw sexuality of Presley, the hips, the hair, the look and a voice which in my opinion is the greatest voice of popular music. Then you have Berry's guitar abilities. Everyone from Steve Jones to Slash uses that same Berry lick. Little Richard. Lewis, Gene Vincent - Holly's songwriting.

The Beatles acknowledged this debt: Lennon seeing Heartbreak Hotel, Harrison's heroes, Perkins and Scotty Moore, Paul's Little Richard impression. It is all there.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Also, The Beatles were very clever and...they often purposely rode the line between tribute and parody and piss-take. For instance Rocky Raccoon, to me, is more a pisstake of the Bob Dylaney folk style than it is a tribute. Perhaps cuz they considered Bob more as someone of their time, competition if you like. But it's one of those things that its done pretty clever so you could just as easily call it a tribute or a serious attempt at that style, which it is musically but lyrically and that silly accent Paul puts on is quite clearly taking the rise out of em.

Love this song

Edited September 13, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Guest Len B'stard]

One trick pony?

[GivenToFly]

No 1 singles: Elvis

US: 18

UK: 21

No 1 singles: Jackson

US: 12

UK: 7

Elvis had much less competition for the charts.

[Guest Len B'stard]

No 1 singles: Elvis

US: 18

UK: 21

No 1 singles: Jackson

US: 12

UK: 7

Elvis had much less competition for the charts.

How so?

[GivenToFly]

When millions upon millions of people latch onto this thing that the establishment considered moronic and dead-headed and symptomatic of the decay of society it's merits become difficult to ignore and people get all tied up into this hype and think, y'know, wow, this is more than pop music, it's a cultural phenomenon, look how many people are into it, it cant just be about sex, getting loaded, cars and a good time, we've gotta make it about something more...and in the process detracting from and ignoring the boring old things that made this genre great in the first place.

And the conclusion of that is the ruination of it, you have all these stuck up arseholes like Eric Clapton doing these gigs where people come to stare at them in wonderment at the 'art' unfolding before their eyes, it lead ultimately to the death of rock n roll, this intellectualising of it, it became like a college boys thing and your average person on the street just turn to whatever it is that is making the kids move on their given day.

Rock n Roll is dead now and it is due in no small part to the sort of uptightness that demands that 'you gotta write your own songs maaan' or 'wow, that guitar player sucks, he's so sloppy' and etc and so forth. Rock n roll was a thing any kid could learn a few chords and throw together a band and get up onstage come the weekends and have a good time with, that was the beauty of it, was inclusive and it was blue collar and it was of the people and for the people, all this shit that came later, all these rules like you gotta be able to play like Segovia or you ain't a credible guitarists or you gotta be an author on some level or you gotta like, expand or build on it or take it in some kinda niche direction or break out the cowbells and sitars and all this shit, it's all wonderful stuff in it's context but this idea that one should then go off and construct this rulebook over it is just...a little disingenuous.

Rock n roll ain't about seeing Emily play or stairways to heaven or goblins or concept albums about a boy born inside a giant shoe called Magoo, it's about:

What rock music turned into after 1965 or so had extremely little in common with what it was before then. Later rock subgenres may have been originally born out of classic rock 'n' roll but ultimately became musical notions of their own, not just different approaches to rock 'n' roll. As such it makes no sense to judge them by rock 'n' roll standards. You often (not just in this thread) belittle many rock artists for making music that goes beyond the very simple Chuck Berry stuff, or for making music that people don't dance to, or for not being blue collar or whatever. You don't want a rulebook and then you follow that up with "Rock n roll [...] it's about:"

Remember where you are for a second: on a fan website for a band that made 8 minutes+ songs and covered Pink Floyd live.

[Guest Len B'stard]

When millions upon millions of people latch onto this thing that the establishment considered moronic and dead-headed and symptomatic of the decay of society it's merits become difficult to ignore and people get all tied up into this hype and think, y'know, wow, this is more than pop music, it's a cultural phenomenon, look how many people are into it, it cant just be about sex, getting loaded, cars and a good time, we've gotta make it about something more...and in the process detracting from and ignoring the boring old things that made this genre great in the first place.

And the conclusion of that is the ruination of it, you have all these stuck up arseholes like Eric Clapton doing these gigs where people come to stare at them in wonderment at the 'art' unfolding before their eyes, it lead ultimately to the death of rock n roll, this intellectualising of it, it became like a college boys thing and your average person on the street just turn to whatever it is that is making the kids move on their given day.

Rock n Roll is dead now and it is due in no small part to the sort of uptightness that demands that 'you gotta write your own songs maaan' or 'wow, that guitar player sucks, he's so sloppy' and etc and so forth. Rock n roll was a thing any kid could learn a few chords and throw together a band and get up onstage come the weekends and have a good time with, that was the beauty of it, was inclusive and it was blue collar and it was of the people and for the people, all this shit that came later, all these rules like you gotta be able to play like Segovia or you ain't a credible guitarists or you gotta be an author on some level or you gotta like, expand or build on it or take it in some kinda niche direction or break out the cowbells and sitars and all this shit, it's all wonderful stuff in it's context but this idea that one should then go off and construct this rulebook over it is just...a little disingenuous.

Rock n roll ain't about seeing Emily play or stairways to heaven or goblins or concept albums about a boy born inside a giant shoe called Magoo, it's about:

What rock music turned into after 1965 or so had extremely little in common with what it was before then. Later rock subgenres may have been originally born out of classic rock 'n' roll but ultimately became musical notions of their own, not just different approaches to rock 'n' roll. As such it makes no sense to judge them by rock 'n' roll standards. You often (not just in this thread) belittle many rock artists for making music that goes beyond the very simple Chuck Berry stuff, or for making music that people don't dance to, or for not being blue collar or whatever. You don't want a rulebook and then you follow that up with "Rock n roll [...] it's about:"

Remember where you are for a second: on a fan website for a band that made 8 minutes+ songs and covered Pink Floyd live.

The framework stayed the same throughout, a lot of what passed in the 60s for experimentation was very lightweight because it never really touched or messed with the structure much, it was all about laying things on top or a little extra instrumentation or whatever but when you strip it all away the framework was basically just rock n roll as laid out by the old boys, to my thinking anyway.

I don't belittle rock 'artists' for going beyond rock n roll, thats ridiculous, the majority of the music that i like does that. I just think some bands (usually your more classic rock types) get credited for doing it when they haven't really in any substantial way and furthermore, when certain artists really do do it in a way that actually ruptures the format somewhat then your average Pink Floyd fan can't hack it and give it all that 'omg, thats just noises, it's horrible, it's not 'musical''.

I got nothing against experimentation, i've just got something against lauding people for it when they haven't the vision to really do it and then hammering others into the ground that do it properly and present you with something truly different and experimental because it's less comfortably recognisable or too radical for some peoples ears.

It's all about taste end of the day i guess. You don't need to really intellectualise to experiment, it's not essential...in fact it's almost to the detriment of the music.

Edited September 14, 2013 by sugaraylen

[DieselDaisy]

No 1 singles: Elvis

US: 18

UK: 21

No 1 singles: Jackson

US: 12

UK: 7

Elvis had much less competition for the charts.

Disagree.

[bacardimayne]

i legitimately become amused when i'm reminded that people listen to elvis

then again, dieseldaisy is a gilby clarke fan so it makes sense

[DieselDaisy]

i legitimately become amused when i'm reminded that people listen to elvis

then again, dieseldaisy is a gilby clarke fan so it makes sense

As opposed to Illegitimately?

Listen, Slash would not exist. Axl would not exist. The Beatles would not exist. The Stones would not exist - without, Presley. You may as well get your grandma's old Vera Lynn 78s out.

[bacardimayne]

They'd all exist. The only person who wouldn't exist would be Elvis himself. Someone else would have taken his spot, sung all the same songs, done all the same things, influenced all the same people. Only thing he might've done different is not been a fat cunt and died on the toilet.

Edited September 14, 2013 by bacardimayne

[DieselDaisy]

You are speaking complete bollocks. So Elvis does not exist? So, 'alternative world Elvis' - Elvus - appears and makes a song called Heartbridge Motel which inspires Lennon to take up rock. Where was this person coming from? Why did he not compete with the reality Elvis?

[bacardimayne]

The point I'm making is that Elvis was a project. A creation of professional songwriters and stylists. No different than the Justin Biebers and Selena Gomezes of today. If Elvis hadn't existed, they simply would have picked some other handsome guy with a good voice and given him these songs to sing.

[DieselDaisy]

Sorry but Elvis had nobody like that when he walked into Sun Studios. All he had was his guitar, his voice, and a deep knowledge of American music.

[Guest Len B'stard]

And it's those records that are considered his fuckin' peak...at least for purists. Honestly, some other pretty whiteboy would've took his place? Y'know, there were a shitload of them and none of em reached where Elvis reached.

And btw, all these great bands, The Beatles, The Stones, The Who could all be said to be a construct of management. The Beatles dressed, spoke and acted and cut their hair as they were told to get where they were, same with The Stones. Fuck me, even The Stones as songwriters were a construct of management, they were MADE to write songs.

Also, can i just say, this whole alternate reality thing, i hear this bought up often is musical discussions like 'if this wouldn't've happened then this would've happened' or 'such and such shouldn't've happened, it should've happened like this' and to paraphrase Lenny Bruce, there is no if, there's only reality, if is a dream in peoples heads.

The elements of Elvis that were the source of controversy, his particular style of getting down to his music, his long hair, his dress sense, all that funky shit he wore (and i mean the early stuff more than the later stuff here), his attitude was dictated to him by no one. The same cannot be said for The Beatles and The Stones. Fuck me, even The Who were more or less constructed as mods by Pete Meaden, with two of em (Entwhistle and Daltrey) actual open dislikers of the mod schtick, imagine that, acting and dressing in a style that you actually actively dislike, not just like...not caring and just putting on a suit cuz you're told but actually hating a certain style and what it represents and being into the polar opposite of it...but doing it anyway.

Now I'm one of the biggest Beatles fans you'll ever meet but lets have it right here.

It basically all comes down to authorship, doesn't it? This is whats the problem, you ain't an 'artist' unless you write your own songs well i think thats a load of bollocks and nobody can give me a good reason as to why that makes a given artist more value than one who sings someone elses written song. What, do you feel like you know em better or something, like you were made privy to a piece of their heart, like you got some connection to something deep about them now that makes you feel close to em or something? Lemme tell you something, most 'songwriters' just basically fuckin' put words together that sound good.

If someone can actually explain to me this value put in writing ones own songs that stretches to the point where if you DON'T write your own songs then you ain't a credible artist, I want that explained to me and if someone can explain it in a way that makes sense then hey, i might take it up as an opinion.

So Elvis ain't a credible artist, Diana Ross ain't a credible artist, Frank Sinatra ain't a credible artist?!?! Really?!?! Marvin Gaye, someone else who is considered a fucking titan of post war popular music, he wrote hardly any of his own songs, the majority someone else wrote...all these people arent credible artists and are a construct of management or whatever? Please.

[GivenToFly]

The point I'm making is that Elvis was a project. A creation of professional songwriters and stylists. No different than the Justin Biebers and Selena Gomezes of today. If Elvis hadn't existed, they simply would have picked some other handsome guy with a good voice and given him these songs to sing.

A good project though (to say the least). And different than the Justin Biebers and Selena Gomezes of today by virtue of being better in every way: better songs, better performer, better image etc.

[dalsh327]

The point I'm making is that Elvis was a project. A creation of professional songwriters and stylists. No different than the Justin Biebers and Selena Gomezes of today. If Elvis hadn't existed, they simply would have picked some other handsome guy with a good voice and given him these songs to sing.

A good project though (to say the least). And different than the Justin Biebers and Selena Gomezes of today by virtue of being better in every way: better songs, better performer, better image etc.

There's nothing more to this than having fun on stage. He worked 2 years of touring the south to get to this point of being recognized and respected in his hometown.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtY9GL8hm2k