The problems with Invincible

[analogue]

Post removed

 

[mj_frenzy]

Invincible is like some of the posts I've made on Facebook which hold a lot of meaning to me but are seldomly "liked" and so I delete them myself since nobody's gonna see them. Invincible probably was the same way for Michael. It went out of the charts as early as mid to late 2002 in much of the territories. So it probably hurt him and thus he did not try to reincarnate the songs or memories. And he probably thought that there wouldn't be any cheers from the crowds when he performed them during This Is It. It's sad and thinking about it in this way.. well it upsets me more. That is why he let Invincible fade - because no one's gonna pay attention to it.

I think I'm gonna go listen to Invincible again - in his memory.

It is very likely that MJ probably felt the same way.

I mean it could have been really painful for him to perform songs (from that album) only to get a lukewarm reaction, so he probably decided to act proactively & not perform songs from ‘Invincible’ at all (during the subsequent years). He was an artist that he received adulation from his fans during the years prior to the release of ‘Invincible’, so, I agree that he probably decided to protect himself on an (at least) emotional level.

But at the same time I believe that he was fully aware of the circumstances. For example, he knew that the lack of its commercial success was brought on also from the absence of a proper promotional campaign. So, I think if he really put faith in that album, then he would have done everything in his power to support it (taking into account that ‘Invincible’ had not fully blossomed up to that point). On the contrary, he engaged in a meaningless, vicious circle making the battle with his record company even harsher instead of focusing on how to decisively & effectively support his latest studio album.

I'm one of the (few) who really love Invincible. I could do without some of the songs on it, but I still love the album as a whole. I find it hard to believe that fans didn't vote (when they had the chance to pick the songs for This Is It) for Unbreakable, or Threatened.
But, knowing Michael, he might have felt that Invincible had been a flop, since it hadn't sold so well. Or maybe he associated it with bad memories (from recordings, disagreement over short films, battles with Sony...). I guess we'll never know for sure...

I can understand to a degree that he probably could have associated ‘Invincible’ with negative emotions/circumstances like the ones you mentioned. In my opinion, the fact that he never fulfilled his wish to (visually) release ‘Unbreakable’ in the way he envisioned that song, played also a role regarding his overall attitude toward that album.

But at the same time he associated that period also with very positive & optimistic feelings, not only on a personal but also on an artistic/commercial level.

For example, when he was recording that album he was a really happy man & that was being expressed on numerous occasions by himself & his closest environment. We have to take also into account that prior to those recording sessions he had created a family, he had just ended a giant, very successful world tour (& felt the adulation/adoration from his fans) & generally he seemed to be relaxed & under no significant pressure on many levels.

This Is It was a greatest hits tour, as he said it was, as it was announced and promoted to be. No songs from Invincible album are among his greatest hits, for various reasons and neither one of them being quality. Enough said about This Is It.

I know that the ‘This Is It’ shows were meant as his greatest hits shows.

In my opinion, that made the opportunity (for tentatively including also few songs from ‘Invincible’ in those 2009 shows) look even greater, taking into account also the many, consecutive dates of those shows.

 

[barbee0715]

But I still maintain Invincible is the better album overall, even if it does feel slightly blasphemous to say such a thing.

Haha. Definitely blasphemous.

Seriously though I sometimes think the Quincy trilogy gets taken for granted.

 

[KOPV]

I'll say this... I definitely believe Michael let the pressure of everything get to him which resulted in..

These are my opinions, so take it for what it is lol!

* Not believing in himself thus relying on other people to produce more of the product (writing, production etc.)
* Michael has never allowed money to stop a goal from being reached so when he felt he 'needed' this and that.. He expected sony to take care of it.

I really do believe that was a trying time for michael even before the release of the album.. He had so much pressure to make a huge album that remained relevant for the time, and honestly AT the time the general public was not very 'MJ friendly' which adds a lot of pressure.. In addition after HIStory he became more recluse than ever which definitely takes away his relevance during a time where music was changing.. Than all of a sudden a Michael Jackson album comes out when the public was vertually anti MJ..

And yes, before anyone tells me it was not.. You are ignoring the number of fans that got made fun of for listening to Michael.. Fans I have seen hide there music or when they didn't they always had to defensively stand up for it.. That was tough... You literally had to be brave to be an MJ fan in the early to mid 2000's...

For big fans like us that may be easy, but it is not as easy for the general interested fan that feels weird walking to the MJ CD and carrying it to the counter.. I remember the feeling of getting ready to defend Michael every time I did something MJ related!

It was easier to be a Eminem, Britney Spears, N'Sync, Korn etc. fan!!

I bet you IF it was not taboo to be an MJ fan in 2001 it would have sold a decent amount more..

 

[Gatesy2006]

The album is nowhere near his best work, some songs are good (Unbreakable and Butterflies) and one brilliant song (Whatever Happens), but the rest of it is mediocre with Lost Children being one of the worst songs he ever produced.

The album to me is just one less commitment he owed to Song, his heart wasn't in it.

 

[MAQ]

I agree.

Pound for pound there is more I enjoy on Invincible than there is on Thriller. All the songs you listed are brilliant tracks, I would also add Butterflies and The Lost Children to that list.

Although I am aware that it could be very easy to take the sheer brilliance of songs like Beat It and Billie Jean for granted as they've been so overexposed over the years. And I would say Billie Jean >>> everything on Invincible. But I still maintain Invincible is the better album overall, even if it does feel slightly blasphemous to say such a thing.

It is something I'd like to call "sweet blasphemy" XD .

 

[MAQ]

Haha. Definitely blasphemous.

Seriously though I sometimes think the Quincy trilogy gets taken for granted.

Not really, Thriller is almost criminally overrated, Off the Wall is considered to be his most authentic record and Bad to be his last good album. They are not overlooked by much of the critic community. In fact, much of the US/UK public thinks that way as well. The HIStory album had its 20th Anniversary a few months back and it rarely made any news (at least according to Google), considering it's the most successful double album with MJ's hugest supporting tour.

So, no; the QJ trilogy has been always used as a way to compare the good MJ (QJ) with the weird MJ (90's and 2001).

 

[Euan]

Lost Children being one of the worst songs he ever produced.

Why don't people like this song?

 

[mj_frenzy]

Who knows? In the end he may have not been 100% happy with the output.

Generally, I don't think Michael was completely satisfied with any of his albums - after all, he was a perfectionist

I agree.

MJ expressed his strong desire/request regarding that matter on many occasions, one example is when he referred to the ‘Bad’ album (“this album should be as close to perfect as humanly possible&#8221.

This specific philosophy seemed to have applied to every solo album he released (from ‘Off The Wall’ onwards), so, I think it is not unrealistic to assume that he was never fully satisfied each time he released an album.

Michael saying that Invincible was better than Thriller is something I always took with a grain of salt. Because at the time Michael was promoting the Invincible album, so of course he's going to say something like that to generate hype for that album. He wasn't going to do interviews and say ''This isn't as good as Thriller or any of my other previous albums''

I agree.

From a marketing perspective, he did the right thing when he expressed publicly his jubilation about ‘Invincible’ during that period.

Generally, it is not uncommon for a singer to describe his/her latest record as his/her best one & I cannot understand why MJ has to be an exception.

When it comes to the public's opinion, I've heard from some of the people who like Michael Jackson's music that a song or two from Invincible is their favorite, like Break of Dawn. So who knows? Maybe he thought the album was good and that the other songs were just not at the right level to be released. That's usually the case.

We should not forget that during each recording session MJ used to record dozens of tracks only to discard them after a while.

So, in my opinion, when he was about to include songs on an album he was equally confident about the quality of each one of them.

I don't think there's any significance in MJ not performing any Invincible tracks on TII. It was his first tour in 12 years and he knew that people (non-hardcore fans) were going to want to hear the hits be performed, not obscure album tracks from a nearly decade old album. And unfortunately, everything on Invincible is obscure except for maybe YRMW and possibly Butterflies.

In my opinion, obscurity did not act as a deterrent when it came to his live performing.

MJ used to perform such type of songs during his shows (for example, ‘Blood On The Dance Floor’, ‘Will You Be There’ ‘They Don’t Care About Us&#8217 & I cannot see why songs from ‘Invincible’ had to be an exception (in regard to obscurity).

 

[SkyWalk]

I thought Michael had a totally different album at first which he presented to Sony but Sony thought it wasn't quite what they were looking for so eventually changed to the Invincible we know today?

 

[mj_frenzy]

I thought Michael had a totally different album at first which he presented to Sony but Sony thought it wasn't quite what they were looking for so eventually changed to the Invincible we know today?

To be honest, I am not sure if that thing you mentioned ever took place.

All of those songs were singles. BOTD was a UK number 1 and a big hit in Europe as was TDCAU. Hardly obscure. Those songs are far better known than anything from Invincible

I thought that you referred to obscurity in a different way (in terms of lyrics/themes), hence those songs that I mentioned.

 

[mj_frenzy]

I'll say this... I definitely believe Michael let the pressure of everything get to him which resulted in..

These are my opinions, so take it for what it is lol!

* Not believing in himself thus relying on other people to produce more of the product (writing, production etc.)
* Michael has never allowed money to stop a goal from being reached so when he felt he 'needed' this and that.. He expected sony to take care of it.

I really do believe that was a trying time for michael even before the release of the album.. He had so much pressure to make a huge album that remained relevant for the time, and honestly AT the time the general public was not very 'MJ friendly' which adds a lot of pressure.. In addition after HIStory he became more recluse than ever which definitely takes away his relevance during a time where music was changing.. Than all of a sudden a Michael Jackson album comes out when the public was vertually anti MJ..

And yes, before anyone tells me it was not.. You are ignoring the number of fans that got made fun of for listening to Michael.. Fans I have seen hide there music or when they didn't they always had to defensively stand up for it.. That was tough... You literally had to be brave to be an MJ fan in the early to mid 2000's...

For big fans like us that may be easy, but it is not as easy for the general interested fan that feels weird walking to the MJ CD and carrying it to the counter.. I remember the feeling of getting ready to defend Michael every time I did something MJ related!

It was easier to be a Eminem, Britney Spears, N'Sync, Korn etc. fan!!

I bet you IF it was not taboo to be an MJ fan in 2001 it would have sold a decent amount more..

I believe, like you, that being relied on so many different songwriters could have been a sign of his uncertainty during that time. This may also explain its low commercial success.

But concerning its sales & in order to be fair enough we have to take into account that the music industry around that time underwent a drastic change. I mean that the emergence of the various digital forms of music (obviously at the expense of the CD format) made things totally different, mostly in relation to the commercial aspect of music.

Also, I can understand that his musical absence (before the release of ‘Invincible&#8217 raised doubts about his ability to succeed (or at least to stay relevant). But media/press reports played a significant role in regard to that matter. For example, during that period people were led to believe that MJ was obliged to prove who he was, that he had to regain his throne & so on.

MJ was totally aware of that, but at the same time saw things from a different angle:

“No matter where you, how long you've been away, or whatever the situation is. You know, greatness is greatness and if you really do a great job on what you're doing, people want to hear it. Or they want to see it. You know, it doesn't matter, It really doesn't. Long as you're an innovator and a pioneer, you know. And that's the most important thing. Give them what they want to hear.” (Michael Jackson, 2001)

 

[KOPV]

I believe, like you, that being relied on so many different songwriters could have been a sign of his uncertainty during that time. This may also explain its low commercial success.

But concerning its sales & in order to be fair enough we have to take into account that the music industry around that time underwent a drastic change. I mean that the emergence of the various digital forms of music (obviously at the expense of the CD format) made things totally different, mostly in relation to the commercial aspect of music.

Also, I can understand that his musical absence (before the release of ‘Invincible&#8217 raised doubts about his ability to succeed (or at least to stay relevant). But media/press reports played a significant role in regard to that matter. For example, during that period people were led to believe that MJ was obliged to prove who he was, that he had to regain his throne & so on.

MJ was totally aware of that, but at the same time saw things from a different angle:

“No matter where you, how long you've been away, or whatever the situation is. You know, greatness is greatness and if you really do a great job on what you're doing, people want to hear it. Or they want to see it. You know, it doesn't matter, It really doesn't. Long as you're an innovator and a pioneer, you know. And that's the most important thing. Give them what they want to hear.” (Michael Jackson, 2001)

Yeah, I agree that the music industry and digital downloads/illegal downloads effected sales but at the same time Many artists back in 2001-2004 were selling 10+ million on a fairly regular rate. I mean in some cases Invincible world wide sales were matching some artists U.S. sales around that time..

While I like Invincible we can't deny that even within the fan community it's usually voted as the least favored 'living' MJ album..

I don't think Invincible sales are a big mystery, more so fans feeling the need to not want it to be "Michaels fault", so we point out outside things that resulted in a lack in sales.. which are also DO participate..

1. It was not 'cool' to be an MJ fan and many general fans were embarrased to buy/play MJ music at the time
2. the fight between Sony and Michael for sure effected it
3. the fight caused major promotional issues (tour, lack of videos, public appearances etc.)
4. The album was not the most favored

Just to name a few things...

But to answer the question about the thread is really about 'was MJ dissatisfied with the album', I think he was more so dissatisfied with the reception of the album not the product.. YES he's a perfectionist and never 100% satisfied but I think he would have delayed the albums release even further if that were the case.. He enjoys his music, otherwise he would not think it's releasable!

 

[MAQ]

Yeah, I agree that the music industry and digital downloads/illegal downloads effected sales but at the same time Many artists back in 2001-2004 were selling 10+ million on a fairly regular rate. I mean in some cases Invincible world wide sales were matching some artists U.S. sales around that time..

While I like Invincible we can't deny that even within the fan community it's usually voted as the least favored 'living' MJ album..

I don't think Invincible sales are a big mystery, more so fans feeling the need to not want it to be "Michaels fault", so we point out outside things that resulted in a lack in sales.. which are also DO participate..

1. It was not 'cool' to be an MJ fan and many general fans were embarrased to buy/play MJ music at the time
2. the fight between Sony and Michael for sure effected it
3. the fight caused major promotional issues (tour, lack of videos, public appearances etc.)
4. The album was not the most favored

Just to name a few things...

But to answer the question about the thread is really about 'was MJ dissatisfied with the album', I think he was more so dissatisfied with the reception of the album not the product.. YES he's a perfectionist and never 100% satisfied but I think he would have delayed the albums release even further if that were the case.. He enjoys his music, otherwise he would not think it's releasable!

The sales of Invincible can not be equated to its artistic value. Because it was a trend back in the early 2000's for that kinda music, his album should have sold at least 15 to 20 million records. A lot more shallow albums were selling better than Invincible.

And in case you've overlooked this point; HIStory and BotDF were released during the period when it wasn't cool to be an MJ fan anymore as well (at least in the tabloid infested areas). But both sold very well in their given formats. BotDF had only 2 music videos for its promotion and was a remix album (which generally don't sell a lot) and yet it sold more than 6 million records ww. HIStory on the other hand had lots of promos, but it was flocked with controversy and was probably the first album which got "hate" from a lot of critics/people. Yet, it sold more than 20 million records ww. So, no, MJ albums always sold well no matter what his public image was.

This provides us with two remaining reasons as to why Invincible didn't sell as well:
1. MJ had dominated much of the music scene for 3 straight decades. How much longer could this successful streak be? No other artist at that point had multiple number ones in more than 2 decades other than Michael.

2. No promotion.

Of these two reasons the latter I think is more authentic. Because Invincible sold quiet a lot for an artist who's magnum opus was supposedly back in the early 80's - 6-7 million certified copies sold is very very good. And all without almost any promotion. No tour, no interviews (good ones), only 1 video - I mean, how is it fair to compare it to Thriller or even any other NSYNC, Britney Spear or Shakira album released during that period?

 

[AlwaysThere]

I thought Michael had a totally different album at first which he presented to Sony but Sony thought it wasn't quite what they were looking for so eventually changed to the Invincible we know today?

Sometime in 1999 Michael presented five to seven songs to Sony as a taste of what he was putting together, and they shot it down by claiming that they didn't feel any of the songs had hit potential. That's when he reworked it from the ground up.

Almost every song released on the final album was recorded between 2000-2001. You Rock My World and Break of Dawn are one of the few exceptions.

 

[KOPV]

The sales of Invincible can not be equated to its artistic value. Because it was a trend back in the early 2000's for that kinda music, his album should have sold at least 15 to 20 million records. A lot more shallow albums were selling better than Invincible.

And in case you've overlooked this point; HIStory and BotDF were released during the period when it wasn't cool to be an MJ fan anymore as well (at least in the tabloid infested areas). But both sold very well in their given formats. BotDF had only 2 music videos for its promotion and was a remix album (which generally don't sell a lot) and yet it sold more than 6 million records ww. HIStory on the other hand had lots of promos, but it was flocked with controversy and was probably the first album which got "hate" from a lot of critics/people. Yet, it sold more than 20 million records ww. So, no, MJ albums always sold well no matter what his public image was.

This provides us with two remaining reasons as to why Invincible didn't sell as well:
1. MJ had dominated much of the music scene for 3 straight decades. How much longer could this successful streak be? No other artist at that point had multiple number ones in more than 2 decades other than Michael.

2. No promotion.

Of these two reasons the latter I think is more authentic. Because Invincible sold quiet a lot for an artist who's magnum opus was supposedly back in the early 80's - 6-7 million certified copies sold is very very good. And all without almost any promotion. No tour, no interviews (good ones), only 1 video - I mean, how is it fair to compare it to Thriller or even any other NSYNC, Britney Spear or Shakira album released during that period?

Maq I mention a few different things that caused MJ's album not to sell the way it could have.. and when I say something like "less favored album" I am speaking on MJ level, of course his music was much better than most of the randomness out at the time.. There are several factors that went into the lack of sales, I mentioned 4 of them above..

And it being 'un-cool' to be an MJ fan durring HIStory is correct but it got much worse post HIStory.. Durring History he was still pretty dang relevant in pop culture. There was not much talk about Michael in general between 1998-2001 in the United States. As we know as time went on post allegations he did more and more over seas and did less and less in the united states.. over time, having one full concert in the united states since 1989 and did more specifically over seas had it's toll..

You look at Invincible Numbers around the world, they were not bad.. Where it lagged the most was the states! U.S. media used those years when Michael was 'not around' to try turning him into a taboo.. a joke.. Which was not fully successful but did effect people for sure!

 

[mj_frenzy]

Sometime in 1999 Michael presented five to seven songs to Sony as a taste of what he was putting together, and they shot it down by claiming that they didn't feel any of the songs had hit potential. That's when he reworked it from the ground up.

Almost every song released on the final album was recorded between 2000-2001. You Rock My World and Break of Dawn are one of the few exceptions.

You are referring probably to 2000.

I mean there were several official announcements (during 1999) issued from Sony regarding that matter. More specifically, Sony executives kept demanding to hear songs (from his forthcoming album) since the summer of 1999. But, due to consecutive delays (regarding its release) that led to new reschedules & rearrangements of that meeting (between Sony executives & MJ), they never got that recorded material that they asked from him, at least during 1999.

Later, during the first months of 2000, Sony executives officially announced that they got indeed few songs from MJ. But I think they never expressed the opinion that his album was about to take the wrong direction, considering that they only heard three or four of them.

Finally, I agree that the vast majority of the songs that were included on ‘Invincible’ came from those two years (2000 & 2001).

 

[AlwaysThere]

You are referring probably to 2000.

I mean there were several official announcements (during 1999) issued from Sony regarding that matter. More specifically, Sony executives kept demanding to hear songs (from his forthcoming album) since the summer of 1999. But, due to consecutive delays (regarding its release) that led to new reschedules & rearrangements of that meeting (between Sony executives & MJ), they never got that recorded material that they asked from him, at least during 1999.

Later, during the first months of 2000, Sony executives officially announced that they got indeed few songs from MJ. But I think they never expressed the opinion that his album was about to take the wrong direction, considering that they only heard three or four of them.

Not sure where this information came from but Michael most certainly presented some material to Sony in 1999, i.e. shortly before the arrival of Rodney Jerkins. Break of Dawn was showcased in February, and Speechless came two or three months later.

Sony would never publicly acknowledge that they told Michael they didn't like what he had presented. The album had been delayed for months by that point and it would imply that there was behind-the-scenes drama.

 

[SkyWalk]

It's amazing how Sony or any record company can say Michael Jacksons music is not what they like!!!!

Where were the songs A Place with No Name, Chicago, Shout, Another Day? If those where the songs presented to Sony then they were wrong. Those songs are better than some songs on Invincible.

 

[AlwaysThere]

^^ She Was Loving Me/Chicago only came about because Tommy Mottolla asked Rooney, who was in the private listening session for Break of Dawn, to put something together for Michael. I don't think Mottolla ever heard it in its entirety.

Shout wasn't recorded until 2000. Another Day was in 1999 but I have no idea what songs were presented (I read somewhere that a demo titled Stop the War was among them, but take that with a grain of salt).

 

[TinnyandOdd]

Was it these same sessions that the rumour of the Sony executives walking out of the room without saying a word after came about? Or was that on History? I believe this info. came from Frank Cascio's book, but I could be wrong?

 

[mj_frenzy]

Not sure where this information came from but Michael most certainly presented some material to Sony in 1999, i.e. shortly before the arrival of Rodney Jerkins. Break of Dawn was showcased in February, and Speechless came two or three months later.

Sony would never publicly acknowledge that they told Michael they didn't like what he had presented. The album had been delayed for months by that point and it would imply that there was behind-the-scenes drama.

This sounds interesting.

In any case, I agree that it would not have seemed wise to show publicly their dissatisfaction.

Was it these same sessions that the rumour of the Sony executives walking out of the room without saying a word after came about? Or was that on History? I believe this info. came from Frank Cascio's book, but I could be wrong?

That thing happened when ‘HIStory’ album premiered exclusively for a strictly selected group of people that represented his record company.

Generally, it was unlike him to attend playback sessions just before the official release of a studio album. He regarded those sessions as a necessary evil. Surprisingly, he attended that particular playback session only because Sandy Gallin & Jim Morey convinced him to do it. So, he went at their request:

“I remember Michael was very reluctant. We were about 30 people, all seated in the main control room at Larrabee North Studios. Michael was there, along with Macaulay Culkin. I was sitting with Michael, Macaulay, Sandy Gallin and Jim Morey near the rear of the control room. The entire album was played – Michael’s incredible music.

The last note sounded. All these geniuses from the record label simply got up and left the studio without saying a word! No applause, no comment, no reaction – I was absolutely mortified! How can people that are supposed to be in the record business be so dumb?

There were tears in Michael’s eyes! Bea, Michael and I went out to the parking lot and got in my Big Bronco. Michael said to me: I’ll never do this again!” (Bruce Swedien, In the studio with Michael Jackson)

 

[AlwaysThere]

This sounds interesting.

In any case, I agree that it would not have seemed wise to show publicly their dissatisfaction.

Oh, without a doubt! It does seem that Sony is heavily to blame for the album turning out the way it did - Michael threw out two years worth of material and started from the ground up because of their comments, aside from You Rock My World, Break of Dawn, and Speechless.

 

[KOPV]

The 'outtakes' of Invincible show that Michaels creative juices were flowing... She Was Loving Me and Chicago... Those two alone would have changed the entire feel of the album.. Michael definitely could have put the trust in himself.. He probably got a lot of "Mike that's good but THIS is what's hott right now." SMH!

If only a small group of Michael fans could have listen to the outtakes prior to the release and were allowed to weigh in.... Would have changed everything!

All the fans would have to do is basically back mike up and give him reason to believe in himself... OF course money hungry music makers are going to want there music on the album.. That is a bias view. and if Michael at the time was unsure of himself, it makes him easier to say 'ok'

 

[mj_frenzy]

The 'outtakes' of Invincible show that Michaels creative juices were flowing... She Was Loving Me and Chicago... Those two alone would have changed the entire feel of the album.. Michael definitely could have put the trust in himself.. He probably got a lot of "Mike that's good but THIS is what's hott right now." SMH!

I think you are referring to the same song.

I mean that ‘She Was Lovin’ Me’ is also known as ‘Chicago’ (probably because of the line ‘I met her on the way to Chicago&#8217.

It was written by Cory Rooney in 1999.

I agree, of course, this specific track was better than many of the songs that eventually were included on ‘Invincible’.

 

[smoothvillain]

I think you are referring to the same song.

I mean that ‘She Was Lovin’ Me’ is also known as ‘Chicago’ (probably because of the line ‘I met her on the way to Chicago’).

It was written by Cory Rooney in 1999.

I agree, of course, this specific track was better than many of the songs that eventually were included on ‘Invincible’.

They only named it Chicago to stick it to Steve Porcaro for not allowing Chicago 1945 to be on Xscape. Petty.

 

[HIStoric]

They only named it Chicago to stick it to Steve Porcaro for not allowing Chicago 1945 to be on Xscape. Petty.

That does sound oddly petty. Source?

 

[barbee0715]

They only named it Chicago to stick it to Steve Porcaro for not allowing Chicago 1945 to be on Xscape. Petty.

Is that true? It's confusing as is. The song has nothing to do with Chicago. Ridiculous.

 

[Hess]

Never heard about that before...

 

[OnirMJ]

They only named it Chicago to stick it to Steve Porcaro for not allowing Chicago 1945 to be on Xscape. Petty.

??? That is just not true. Timbaland and LA Reid changed it because they thought it's the better title for the song and that it would fit better with other songs on the album song list.