Invincible Cover: Gold Vs Coloured Versions

mj_frenzy

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
2,777
Points
113
Location
Greece
Country
Greece
Was the selection (for the Invincible cover) of the five different colours instead of the original, gold version a mistake ?

The record company made that change and despite the potential, marketing purposes of such a move (collectors, etc ...) I firmly believe that the album lost, to some extent, its personality.
 
Such a horribly boring and cheap way to entice people to buy all variations.
Whoo! You can chose which color the cover is tinted! If anything, they should have had completely alternate covers.

All of MJ's album covers were relatively iconic or at least very interesting to look at. This one was just kinda bla. At least his face on the cover, sort of.
 
Invincible is such an underrated album. No one here ever talks about it. We need more Invincible threads to give this underrated album the credit it deserves on here
 
For some reason he looks rather feminine in that gold one.
 
I had silver and green, I didn't even know there was a gold one. Invincible was the first album I bought myself with pocket money, I was 9.
 
According to MJ himself "it's fun to buy all the colors". So I was like, Ok MJ! And bought 6 of them (2 silver) lol

how fun.

tumblr_inline_ni5jrnWskX1t8tudg.gif
 
Gold? Is that a joke?

Not at all, at least before the official release.

And I assume you know how the 'first' one looked like.

No, I don't know the first one (nobody knows it), but anything else closer to Albert Watson's photo would have been better & warmer.

According to MJ himself "it's fun to buy all the colors". So I was like, Ok MJ! And bought 6 of them (2 silver) lol

As a matter of fact, not fun but smart (for the record company).

I had silver and green, I didn't even know there was a gold one. Invincible was the first album I bought myself with pocket money, I was 9.

Sony dismissed that version.
 
I think those 5 different covers showed that they didn’t seem so confident about the recorded material.
 
mj_frenzy;4079640 said:
Not at all, at least before the official release.

No, I don't know the first one (nobody knows it), but anything else closer to Albert Watson's photo would have been better & warmer.

So how do you expect people to choose between a non existing, unconfirmed, hypothetical album cover and the other 5 covers just because you assume it would have looked better? Based on what you assume is "closer to the first cover"? Really? Kind of odd.


mj_frenzy;4079642 said:
I think those 5 different covers showed that they didn’t seem so confident about the recorded material.

Thank you. Now I know for sure what this thread is really about.
 
Last edited:
I think it was a marketing strategy, nothing more. I have the red cover.
 
^^ I would very much like to own a copy of the red cover. I have the standard white one
 
Such a horribly boring and cheap way to entice people to buy all variations.

I disagree. No one is forcing you to buy more than one version. In my opinion it can just be better, because you can choose and buy the one you like the most.
 
mj_frenzy;4079642 said:
I think those 5 different covers showed that they didn’t seem so confident about the recorded material.

What?? Doesn't make any sense.
 
Disgusting, cynical marketing ploy that treated Michael Jackson fans like idiots.
 
Back
Top