The problems with Invincible

[SarahJ]

Are you frikkin kidding me? Little Susie is a complete masterpiece. Everything about it is perfect, the tone is dark,the vocals vulnerable and weighty, the lyrics soft but powerful, the music haunting. :/ But then, maybe I'm in the minority here.

Well I'm with you then, because I love Little Susie. And I also like Invincible. You Rock My World, Break of Dawn, Unbreakable, among others.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

This thread is a matter of taste and personal opinions but saying Little Susie is "one of Michael's worst songs" is preposterous IMO. Little Susie is one of his most powerful statements regarding the abuse and neglecting of children. If you're sensitive and empathetic, you literary feel Michael's heartbreak, sorrow and frustration because he couldn't save that little girl. Everything in that song is absolutely depressive yet so beautiful and full of emotion.

Again, a matter of personal opinion but TLC didn't transmit me in a powerful way the advocacy for children in need he was known for as he did with previous ones. It's rather emotionless, average or generic for his standards.

 

[AlwaysThere]

I disagree. They're all heavily produced, uptempo hip hop songs with the same structure. The structures for "Unbreakable", "Heartbreaker" and "Invincible" are all:

[INTRO][VERSE 1][PRE-CHORUS][CHORUS][VERSE 2][PRE-CHORUS][CHORUS][BRIDGE][RAP][CHORUS][OUTRO/BREAKDOWN]

Structures are completely irrelevant. Michael recycled them on a constant basis, as does every other songwriter in existence. "You Rock My World" fits that bill perfectly with the removal of the [RAP] category, as does "Who Is It" and "Remember the Time" and "Smooth Criminal" and "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" and many, many others.

The opening trifecta of Invincible do not sport similar lyric themes nor do they sound the same. (I guess a case could be made for "Unbreakable" and "Invincible," though "Heartbreaker" is in a league of its own against those two.) Having a similar lyrical structure is not nor will it ever be an issue.

"Break of Dawn" and "Butterflies" unnecessary to Michael's catalog? I hugely disagree. "Break of Dawn" almost sounds like R&B perfection and "Butterflies" is beautiful neo-soul.

Music taste varies. "Break of Dawn" is a good song but far from anything I would consider a highlight of the album. And I may never quite understand what the attraction is towards "Butterflies," which is only listenable because of the vocal (in my personal opinion).

Also, it really surprises me that words like (‘sappy’, ‘garbage’, ‘awful’, ‘parody’, etc.) are also so prevalent among (hard-core) MJ fans because this is exactly the type of words that is used (largely) by critics/non-fans/haters when it comes to MJ’s songs.

So if we genuinely dislike a song, we're supposed to sugarcoat ourselves simply because we're using similar words as critics and non-fans? That's nonsensical. Michael deserves honest criticism just as any other artist does. If he does something that I consider to be "awful" or "garbage" or a "parody" of himself, I'm going to say so. He's my favorite artist of all time, but that doesn't mean I'll kiss his ass when he does something I don't like.

Little Susie is one of his most powerful statements regarding the abuse and neglecting of children.

One quick comment regarding the quoted statement:

I agree with your entire post about "Little Susie" and find it to be one of the most tragic and excellent pieces in Michael's entire catalog. But this sentence here is not why. Just because a song attempts to put forward a positive message or powerful statement does not mean that it is in and of itself a good song. Just as an artist can fail at writing a love song, they can fail at writing a song about war or poverty or sexual abuse.

Macklemore wrote a terrible song about a cause I wholeheartedly support and care for ("Same Love" and homosexuality) as did Justin Bieber ("Pray" and poverty) and Michael ("Seeing Voices" and the blind).

The quality of the song exists not only in the vocal execution, but also in the execution of the lyrics and music.

Just my two cents. It's such an odd and unfair argument.

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

I'll go one better, I hate The Lost Children, such an awful song that didn't belong on any MJ album.

Next to little Susie, it is his worst song. It sounds like a parody song someone would make of a typical MJ world peace type of feel.

Are you frikkin kidding me? Little Susie is a complete masterpiece. Everything about it is perfect, the tone is dark,the vocals vulnerable and weighty, the lyrics soft but powerful, the music haunting. :/ But then, maybe I'm in the minority here.

Can't agree on Little Susie, think it's a brilliant song, amongst his most underrated and dark songs

I love LS as well.

Lost Children is absolutely a song that should've never been released or made..

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but IMO I'm surprised that Sony allowed it to be put on the album.. It's his least strong song by a mile compared to any of his other solo adult albums..

I almost cringe when I listen to it..

I believe that if he had not included this song and YAML and Privacy (and Cry, maybe) then Invincible would've been leaps and bounds better in quality and better received by the public.. Though, it still wouldn't have been a perfect album, but much better regardless..

ALSO.... Little Susie is freaking amazing in every sense of the word!

 

[JM77]

I think that Invincible was a classic album! I just think that many people expected Michael to be releasing lots of beaty, funky songs like he did with his other albums. As frequently named his 'comeback' album from 2001, I think that many fans were expecting a lot from him at that time. In addition to this, I like to name this album his 'laid back'/more R&B/more soul album as there are more down tempo, if you like, songs on it compared to his other albums if you look at the track listing. Though whatever anyone says, I still completely love Invincible, regardless of its length. I cherish all of the songs on the album. In fact, the length of it makes me have even more favourite MJ songs! If you compare the number of up beat songs on another MJ album before Invincible, to Invincible itself, then you will see the difference. For example, look at the number of up beat singles on Dangerous - 'Jam', 'In the Closet', 'Remember the Time', 'Black or White', 'Give In to Me' and 'Who Is It'. And then look at Invincible's number, 'You Rock My World', along with a couple other songs like '2000 Watts', etc. Michael also said (in Frank Cascio's book My Friend Michael) at the time of Invincible, that people will understand the album one day, if not when the album was released in 2001. The fact that a lot of MJ's ballads/slow/down tempo songs, like 'I Can't Help It', are less covered than his other more well known songs like, 'Beat It' where he's dancing his heart out, is why I think that this album was and is underrated. "People will not understand this album right now. It's ahead of its time. But trust me, Frank, ten years from now they will understand and the album will live on forever" - MJ around 2001 from 'My Friend Michael' page 207. I, myself, am one of those people who understands... :yes:

 

[mj_frenzy]

So if we genuinely dislike a song, we're supposed to sugarcoat ourselves simply because we're using similar words as critics and non-fans? That's nonsensical. Michael deserves honest criticism just as any other artist does. If he does something that I consider to be "awful" or "garbage" or a "parody" of himself, I'm going to say so. He's my favorite artist of all time, but that doesn't mean I'll kiss his ass when he does something I don't like.

I never questioned your fan loyalty, & obviously I am not going to do it now.

But, as I have said, generally it is not good form at all when someone resorts to that type of derogatory words to express his/her opinion, especially when there are a million honest (& better) ways to get (effectively) his/her points across.

 

[Gatesy2006]

I never questioned your fan loyalty, & obviously I am not going to do it now.

But, as I have said, generally it is not good form at all when someone resorts to that type of derogatory words to express his/her opinion, especially when there are a million honest (& better) ways to get (effectively) his/her points across.

Nonsense. TLC is an awful song, absolute rubbish, does that make me any less of a MJ fan? Course not.

 

[reibish]

Macklemore wrote a terrible song about a cause I wholeheartedly support and care for ("Same Love" and homosexuality) as did Justin Bieber ("Pray" and poverty) and Michael ("Seeing Voices" and the blind).

Just a reminder here that Michael didn't write Seeing Voices. It's arranged and composed by Sidney Fine. It was never meant to be a song for Michael's own catalog. Michael just came and sang it. I personally love the song, especially for the technical aspects of the way he uses his voice, but I understand why people wouldn't like it.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Nonsense. TLC is an awful song, absolute rubbish, does that make me any less of a MJ fan? Course not.

TLC is not a good song, I agree with that but the song, even the whole Invincible album doesn't get to the extreme like the rest of the crap many performer offered. TLC is one of my least favorites but the only one I would regard as awful is 2000 Watts. Fortunately, Michael is not solely responsible for its creation.

 

[MAQ]

Nonsense. TLC is an awful song, absolute rubbish, does that make me any less of a MJ fan? Course not.

No. But would you say it to MJ's face? There should be some degree of respect for MJ's "community" catalog, considering what he's done for children. Plus, his vocals are angelic and magical in that song!

 

[analogue]

I would regard as awful is 2000 Watts.

The worst thing about that song (For me) was that MJ actually said ''shorty''

That just screams ''Middle aged man who's trying to be down with the kids''

 

[innuendo141]

No. But would you say it to MJ's face? There should be some degree of respect for MJ's "community" catalog, considering what he's done for children. Plus, his vocals are angelic and magical in that song!

This is ridiculous. If someone think's a song is crap, why shouldn't they be able to express it? Michael's charity work has nothing to do with his art.

Art is infinitely open to interpretation. I love Privacy, but I know that a lot of people think it's utter tripe. Do I care? No! It doesn't change how the song sounds to me. If Michael had released a song of him singing the numbers 1-100 backed with a tambourine, we shouldn't feel obliged not to knock it because of what he did for children.

Lastly, being a part of MJ's community should make absolutely everyone feel comfortable enough to be able to give an honest and frank opinion about a song without fear of hurting people's feelings. Everyone here respects his work. By giving an honest opinion about something is the only way we can expect to enjoy real discussions in a Michael Jackson forum.

 

[Gatesy2006]

No. But would you say it to MJ's face? There should be some degree of respect for MJ's "community" catalog, considering what he's done for children. Plus, his vocals are angelic and magical in that song!

What does one thing have to do with the other? Criticising the song isn't a knock on MJ's humanitarian efforts towards Children, we are talking purely on a musical level here. It's a bad song.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Fortunately, Michael is not solely responsible for its creation.

This sounds quite irrelevant & does not make sense.

No. But would you say it to MJ's face?

I agree with you on that, especially when ‘The Lost Children’ was among his most favorite songs from that album (along with ‘Unbreakable’ & ‘Speechless&#8217.

 

[JM77]

I completely understand where you coming from. On the note of paparazzi songs, Leave Me Alone is easily his best. Not to say the others are bad. It's just got that deadly beat...

Also who doesnt wanna ride a rocket with their llama!

Like Fall Out Boy say, Michael can definitely sing angry! Link:

Skip to 3:20

 

[KOPV]

The problem with Invincible is that I was not invited to be in the studio..... lol! Just to be a fly on the wall.. dreaming!

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Nonsense. TLC is an awful song, absolute rubbish, does that make me any less of a MJ fan? Course not.

Let's hear one of your compositions, please? It's alright not to like the song (I don't), but calling it rubbish is akin to armchair quarterbacking. It's easy to make criticisms from the stands. Fans have no skin in the game, mainly because we're not playing it. We're not putting our skills/talent/what-have-you on the line.

Constructive criticism isn't a lack of critique, either. It's just more classy and respectful of the ARTIST and their work, regardless of if we like the finished product or not.

 

[HIStory]

Nonsense. TLC is an awful song, absolute rubbish, does that make me any less of a MJ fan? Course not.

Does that make you any less of an MJ fan? No. Does the way you have put it make you rude and tactless? Possibly.

It's not that you cannot express you do not like a song, but does it really need to be done with such terms? Consider please that others may like that song. And this was MJ_frenzy's point too, not that you cannot like a song or cannot express it. But the language how it is expressed matters.

 

[Gatesy2006]

Let's hear one of your compositions, please? It's alright not to like the song (I don't), but calling it rubbish is akin to armchair quarterbacking. It's easy to make criticisms from the stands. Fans have no skin in the game, mainly because we're not playing it. We're not putting our skills/talent/what-have-you on the line.

Constructive criticism isn't a lack of critique, either. It's just more classy and respectful of the ARTIST and their work, regardless of if we like the finished product or not.

So according to you only musicians can give an opinion on fellow musician's work?

I don't like the song, and I'm not going to sugarcoat it, I think it's awful. I don't need to give a 500 word essay on why I think so.

 

[HIStoric]

Let's hear one of your compositions, please?

Using that logic, we could never ever criticise any work unless we are an artist of similar magnitude.

"That Adam Sandler movie was pretty crap"
"Well, let's see YOU make a movie then"

I feel that sort of logic should really only apply to the work of non-professionals, like if we were talking about some cover on YouTube or something.

 

[MAQ]

Using that logic, we could never ever criticise any work unless we are an artist of similar magnitude.

"That Adam Sandler movie was pretty crap"
"Well, let's see YOU make a movie then"

I feel that sort of logic should really only apply to the work of non-professionals, like if we were talking about some cover on YouTube or something.

But some artists have to be respected - especially those who've given a lot of things to this world.

People like John Lennon are respected even though they've beaten the living crap out of their wives and children, who do drugs just for the pleasure of it and die of overdoses (Janis Joplin) and then there are people like Michael who've never hurt someone and their heartfelt sentiments are regarded as trash or garbage. A little sappy, I could understand, but not "garbage".

We humans are becoming unappreciative of positive stuff and more materialistic with every year. "Jam" comes to mind.

 

[analogue]

deleted

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

Who cares how someone else expresses their own opinions? Regardless of what someone else says (or how they say it), it's probably not going to change anyone else's mind about something...especially a 14 year old song (which is the worst song in his entire adult catalogue...by far!!)

 

[HIStoric]

I wasn't really discussing whether the language used is appropriate or not; I was merely pointing out that in most situations, you can't try to shut down criticism of a professional's work by asking if the criticiser has also made work of similar effort. It gets to the point where you can't criticise much because it could be easily shut down by the "Well why don't you do it then" argument.

"Oh that CGI is crap, totally fake"
"So wheres the CGI you have created?"

"What a poorly designed website. It's slow and ugly"
"Let's see you make a website then!"

"What a grotesque building"
"I don't see you designing buildings"

Etc etc. I mean, if someone went "Michael Jackson isn't a good dancer, I could do that pretty easily" it could be a valid argument then, but in general when you're criticising professional work, it's not really an argument I feel you can apply.

People like John Lennon are respected even though they've beaten the living crap out of their wives and children, who do drugs just for the pleasure of it and die of overdoses (Janis Joplin) and then there are people like Michael who've never hurt someone and their heartfelt sentiments are regarded as trash or garbage. A little sappy, I could understand, but not "garbage".

I really don't think I have to state that every single person who posts on this forum respects Michael as an artist, and that everyone here respects and commends Michael's heartfelt sentiments and efforts to help troubled children all over the world. You can respect Michael's efforts and intentions but still view this particular song as garbage. For myself personally, I don't necessarily see 'The Lost Children' as a garbage song. It's one of the first songs I'd take off the album to help shorten it, but on the whole I'm relatively indifferent to it.

There is also, of course, way more to Joplin and Lennon than just 'overdosing' on drugs or 'beating the living crap out of their wives'. Going a bit off-topic but I really must disagree with your statement that Lennon beat 'the living crap' out of his wives and children. His first wife, Cynthia Lennon wrote in her book that John literally only smacked her once, causing her head to hit a pipe. He was profusely sorry, mortified, and never hit her again. I don't believe I've ever seen Yoko state that he hit her either, nor have I ever seen that he physically beat his own children. Obviously, I'm aware that Lennon had many issues and there are a good number I will not defend; he was an extremely troubled human with many issues that he worked to improve (and I admire the fact that he openly acknowledged these issues and tried to make himself a better man), but I disagree with your statement that he specifically 'beat the living crap out of his wives and children'. A bit off-topic as I do get the general point you're making, but a detail I felt I should point out nonetheless.

 

[KOPV]

Considering the 'problems' with Invincible the album did well.. In retrospect it was a big album when it came out, just not an expected MJ level!!

* around 9/11
* MJ and Sony fighting causing several issues (lack of good promotion, video, tour etc)
* the time in music industry being very niche
* It being a different style for Michael, it even threw off fans.. We all know that for many it's even fans least fav. album he released

It was a time of bubble gum pop and alternative rock... it was almost a transition point In culture that an album like Invicible would easier get overlooked. And if we can just go back and remember that at the time - it was not "cool" to be an MJ fan.. I remember being at school and getting so much crap for having invincible, and when I would find others that had the album they would get defensive before they know I'm an MJ fan too..

Plus I'll add in that Michael used less of his creative control on that album than any other. Only writing two songs and just picking writers and producers that he felt could make hits.. He was not in good place at the time and creatively I believe it effected him - he knew that so he got people he trusted to develop the album..

still sold over 10 million at the time (13 mill now I believe)

 

[analogue]

It was a time of bubble gum pop and alternative rock... it was almost a transition point In culture that an album like Invicible would easier get overlooked. And if we can just go back and remember that at the time - it was not "cool" to be an MJ fan.. I remember being at school and getting so much crap for having invincible, and when I would find others that had the album they would get defensive before they know I'm an MJ fan too..
)

Going a bit O.T I have to say that the early 00's really shows it's age. I love how everything was trying to look all cool and futuristic lol

 

[MAQ]

Going a bit O.T I have to say that the early 00's really shows it's age. I love how everything was trying to look all cool and futuristic lol

Lol I agree xD . the late 90's too . But still, the songs were annoyingly catchy like "I'm Blue (Da Ba Dee)".

 

[mjprince1976]

I have to confess that through me being lazy at the time, I never bought Invincible. And now I can not find a copy of it anymore. All I have is the 3 songs I bought off itunes, You Rock my World, Cry and Butterflies and I love them all. To me they are a grown up Michael and his voice is still on point. Rock my World is a great up tempo, dancey pop track, Butterlies a gorgeous silky neo soul ballad and finally Cry is a convincing "Heal the World type" ballad in my mind. After reading the comments, I seem more put off than ever, but I am still going to track down a copy.

Seems to me the songs Xscape and Blue Gangsta were pretty good (Lets be honest, they were amazing!!!) and thus every other song on Invincible must have been hot, if these failed the cut (Maybe they were too good). I know this post makes me look really naive and fake, but i swear I have every other album and even like the album Michael (Whether its Malachi mash ups and Cascios vocals on Keep your head up, I don't mind, they are great songs and I really love Breaking News). I am going to try and get a copy of Invincible and judge it for myself, because there is very little MJ music I do not like. I think that any album by him would at least have 5 or 6 decent to great songs.

I get the feeling, this length of this album was much larger than all the others and there was some filler, but whereas the Motown albums, OTW, Thriller and Bad all had 11 or less songs, Dangerous had 14 and History 15, so the 17 here is hardly excessive. Besides if you compare it to Prince's misguided Rave un2 the Joy fantastic that came out in 1999, his chance at being commercial again with 6 or 7 duets and sappy neo soul and R and B autotunes, that was so bad in flopping it killed off Clive Davis's career at Arista (He does not mention it in his biography, except waxing Rhapsodically about Supernatural the Santana smash). And I believe that Rock my world was a Top 10 hit and #1 in some places and that the other singles all charted.

I would blame its lack of success on the fact, that by 2001 many people had moved on from Michael Jackson and were getting into rubbishy Idol type music and boybands like 5ive, Nsync, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.

Anyway would it be worth me getting it? I mean I like the Michael album and a lot of people slag that off for reasons other than the Cascio tracks as well.

 

[MAQ]

I have to confess that through me being lazy at the time, I never bought Invincible. And now I can not find a copy of it anymore. All I have is the 3 songs I bought off itunes, You Rock my World, Cry and Butterflies and I love them all. To me they are a grown up Michael and his voice is still on point. Rock my World is a great up tempo, dancey pop track, Butterlies a gorgeous silky neo soul ballad and finally Cry is a convincing "Heal the World type" ballad in my mind. After reading the comments, I seem more put off than ever, but I am still going to track down a copy.

Seems to me the songs Xscape and Blue Gangsta were pretty good (Lets be honest, they were amazing!!!) and thus every other song on Invincible must have been hot, if these failed the cut (Maybe they were too good). I know this post makes me look really naive and fake, but i swear I have every other album and even like the album Michael (Whether its Malachi mash ups and Cascios vocals on Keep your head up, I don't mind, they are great songs and I really love Breaking News). I am going to try and get a copy of Invincible and judge it for myself, because there is very little MJ music I do not like. I think that any album by him would at least have 5 or 6 decent to great songs.

I get the feeling, this length of this album was much larger than all the others and there was some filler, but whereas the Motown albums, OTW, Thriller and Bad all had 11 or less songs, Dangerous had 14 and History 15, so the 17 here is hardly excessive. Besides if you compare it to Prince's misguided Rave un2 the Joy fantastic that came out in 1999, his chance at being commercial again with 6 or 7 duets and sappy neo soul and R and B autotunes, that was so bad in flopping it killed off Clive Davis's career at Arista (He does not mention it in his biography, except waxing Rhapsodically about Supernatural the Santana smash). And I believe that Rock my world was a Top 10 hit and #1 in some places and that the other singles all charted.

I would blame its lack of success on the fact, that by 2001 many people had moved on from Michael Jackson and were getting into rubbishy Idol type music and boybands like 5ive, Nsync, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera.

Anyway would it be worth me getting it? I mean I like the Michael album and a lot of people slag that off for reasons other than the Cascio tracks as well.

I think you should definitely give it a try. I don't know why this album got panned - seriously. It has weaknesses like I mentioned, but it's way above the level of albums like "Celebrity" which were critically acclaimed in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Its lack of success can not be blamed on Michael's popularity since it debuted at the top of the charts and initially sold very fast all across the globe. Rather, it was a difficult time period overall. The 9/11 incident meant that much of the focus on music etc might have been lifted temporarily and Michael couldn't have toured - which boosts album sales significantly - because of security issues. Furthermore, the promotion was minimal compared to his other albums. All his previous albums had a unique packaging - music videos. Scream, Black or White, They Don't Care About Us, Earth Song, Remember the Time, Bad, Beat It, Thriller etc etc. This album had only one video - I love it, but it wasn't ground breaking in almost any way. His "ground breaking" aspect was what had kept him relevant for so many years. Most artists lose much of their audience because they either follow the trends or do what they have already done before whereas MJ was constantly in the search of "sounds that the world hasn't heard yet".
And the last point was that the overall average album sales were down as well. So, those are the main reasons why Vince didn't sell as much. Keep in mind that in most countries where tabloid culture wasn't dominant, MJ was still considered "cool" and an acclaimed representative of the Western culture. So owning an MJ album wasn't deemed bad there.

 

[HIStoric]

The 9/11 incident meant that much of the focus on music etc might have been lifted temporarily and Michael couldn't have toured - which boosts album sales significantly - because of security issues.

9/11 isn't really an excuse unless he was performing a show right after the attacks. A quick Google shows that Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Bob Dylan, and U2 all continued to tour within a month or two of 9/11, with Jackson, U2, and Dylan performing countless shows in the timespan between 9/11 and Invincible's release. Many of these artists also went to Canada/Asia in the months after as well at varying points.

So yeah, 9/11 isn't an excuse.