Latest on MJJC

The problems with Invincible

Love Never Felt So Good
Loving You
She Was Loving Me

For the purpose of the track listing, it had to be changed. 'Love' overkill or what!
 
OnirMJ said:
It is not true.

"I met her on my way to Chicago..."
Click to expand...
That was my point, actually. I met her on the way to Chicago-the song is about HER, not the town. I didn't mean the word, Chicago, was not in the song. It could be any town.
I don't think they should have changed it, overkill or not.
 
The track listing very well could have been changed, but the opening three songs are the only ones having anything to do with relationships. The remaining five are social, personal, so on and so forth.
 
barbee0715;4111365 said:
That was my point, actually. I met her on the way to Chicago-the song is about HER, not the town. I didn't mean the word, Chicago, was not in the song. It could be any town.
I don't think they should have changed it, overkill or not.
Click to expand...

I think it is not rare for songs to be named after certain cities in which the singer met for the first time the female, thematic protagonist of the song.

For example:

- ‘New York’ (Gary Lightbody from Snow Patrol)
- ‘Madrid’ (Ryan Key from Yellowcard)
- ‘Harlem’ (Soren Hansen from New Politics)

Of course, it is very common also that names of cities solely refer to (or are linked to) events that have nothing to do with a specific girl/woman (social themes, for example).
 
AlwaysThere said:
The track listing very well could have been changed, but the opening three songs are the only ones having anything to do with relationships. The remaining five are social, personal, so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Blue Gangsta? A Place With No Name?
 
dam2040 said:
Love Never Felt So Good
Loving You
She Was Loving Me

For the purpose of the track listing, it had to be changed. 'Love' overkill or what!
Click to expand...

It didn't have to be. They wanted to change it and they did. They could have easily changed the tracklist order. Or kept it the way it was, It honestly doesn't bother me if 3 of the songs have the theme of love in the titles. I don't see the problem tbh. maybe that's just me though.
 
Last edited:
I think the futuristic sounds of the album was what threw me off.. It was too much for me at the time, I remember trying to find the actual instramentals.. Thinking, are all the sounds all generated by machine? Those first 3 songs with the feel of 2000 watts made it a bit much.. if they broke up the 3 with even 1 of the unreleased songs that we have later heard that was supposed to be on Invincible would have completely broke up that feel and made it a completely different album.
 
OnirMJ said:
Blue Gangsta? A Place With No Name?
Click to expand...

Blue Gangsta completely slipped my mind - my bad!

A Place With No Name isn't necessarily about a relationship. There are small elements here and there ("She started liking me, kissing me, and hugging me...") but the bulk of it is about the place in which he is - that utopia. She's only a small part of it.
 
AlwaysThere said:
Blue Gangsta completely slipped my mind - my bad!

A Place With No Name isn't necessarily about a relationship. There are small elements here and there ("She started liking me, kissing me, and hugging me...") but the bulk of it is about the place in which he is - that utopia. She's only a small part of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's how I interpret the song as well :) Beautiful song btw. I wish Michael would have released it when he was alive (Original)
 
^ I remember Michael stated on some radio station at the time that he wanted a sound that could not be easily duplicated.. Anyone can take an instrumental apart and reduplicated it when it's not computerized/digital sounds.

To me I take that as the reason why there are so many layers of digital sounds that to me get's overdone.. BUT I still love it, I'm not going to lie. While I see holes in Invincible while stacking it up against previous MJ albums, I would still rather listen to Invincible than pretty much most of what else is released by other artist.. I just have a crazy expectation from Michael.. He set my standard to a specific level for him.. Unfair to him yeah.. I still buy it either way lol
 
Themidwestcowboy said:
Yeah that's how I interpret the song as well :) Beautiful song btw. I wish Michael would have released it when he was alive (Original)
Click to expand...

The original has grown on me immensely in the past few months; beforehand I wasn't too fond of it. It would have been a warm inclusion on Invincible. But I just can't shake myself from the StarGate remix - I'm still head over heels for that one! :p
 
KOPV;4111487 said:
I think the futuristic sounds of the album was what threw me off.. It was too much for me at the time, I remember trying to find the actual instramentals.. Thinking, are all the sounds all generated by machine? Those first 3 songs with the feel of 2000 watts made it a bit much.. if they broke up the 3 with even 1 of the unreleased songs that we have later heard that was supposed to be on Invincible would have completely broke up that feel and made it a completely different album.
Click to expand...

I think the fact that fans find fault with such type of songs (like ‘Invincible’ or ‘Heartbreaker’) makes a lot of sense.

But, in my opinion, this issue comes down mostly to their production & not the order of these songs. For example, that futuristic, overly computerized, generic sound takes precedence over his voice on these songs &, unfortunately, it was not even the first time that thing happened (‘She Drives Me Wild’, for instance).

Anyway, it is unbelievably sad to think that songs like ‘She Was Lovin’ Me’, ‘A Place With No Name’, ‘Fall Again’, We ‘ve Had Enough’ or even ‘Seeing Voices’ were left out of his final studio album.

Also, according to Dr. Freeze, two songs that MJ “adored them” & although “were their priorities” never made the album (that is, 'A Place With No Name', & ‘Blue Gangsta’).

So, as I noted earlier, it is not unrealistic to conclude that MJ was probably not thrilled with (or at least not fully satisfied with) the songs that eventually made the ‘Invincible’ album.

KOPV;4111515 said:
^ I remember Michael stated on some radio station at the time that he wanted a sound that could not be easily duplicated.. Anyone can take an instrumental apart and reduplicated it when it's not computerized/digital sounds.
Click to expand...

MJ said in 2001 during an Online Audio Chat that he wanted to "hit on things, to beat on things, so nobody can duplicate what we do".

But, in my opinion, this specific philosophy alone does not necessarily lead to exceptional songs.
 
Last edited:
The only problem I have with 'Invincible' is that it has too many songs.

You take the best 9 or 10 songs from it and, for me, it's elevated to where it should be - rubbing shoulders with 'History' and close behind 'Dangerous'. Certainly it's best 9/10 songs are ahead of any other albums I can think of from that era.
 
The fact that Beautiful Girl went unfinished and was thrown on a random box set that I'm sure very few outside the core fan community know exists disappoints me in a way I can't quite explain. It's easily the most exquisite song Michael's written in years.
 
dam2040 said:
Love Never Felt So Good
Loving You
She Was Loving Me

For the purpose of the track listing, it had to be changed. 'Love' overkill or what!
Click to expand...

Not really. I don't think it's a problem for three consecutive songs to have "love" in their titles at all.

I think "She Was Loving Me" represents the song much better than simply "Chicago".
 
Last edited:
The singular appearance of the word "Chicago" in the song isn't a good argument as to why it shouldn't have been named that way. What of Earth Song, which is never said? Or Superfly Sister? Or Tabloid Junkie? Or I'm So Blue? Or Will You Be There (which is sung once)?

The only fair argument is that it changes Michael's original idea. And even then... eh. Titles aren't very paramount.
 
SmoothMJ;4111620 said:
The only problem I have with 'Invincible' is that it has too many songs.
Click to expand...

I believe that the number of the songs is not the case, but the songs themselves.

MJ opted for Rodney Jerkins in order to appeal also to a new generation of fans who were not familiar with his music in the previous years. But, that audience (mostly teens at that period) was fully conversant with Jerkins’ hits that had already dominated the charts the period before the release of ‘Invincible’ (‘Say My Name’, for instance).

One example is that MJ had to use Jerkins' name as a vehicle so as to tie himself with the producer’s impact to that audience during that period (by uttering his nickname, ‘Darkchild’, in the beginning of the lead single). Although this particular strategy seemed simple, it did not really work out.

The ‘Invincible’ debate is an ongoing one, taking into account that its (leaked or officially released) outtakes are going to add more & more to its controversy (regarding the final recorded material that was included on that album).


SmoothGangsta;4111464 said:
It honestly doesn't bother me if 3 of the songs have the theme of love in the titles. I don't see the problem tbh. maybe that's just me though.
Click to expand...

Spaceship;4111658 said:
Not really. I don't think it's a problem for three consecutive songs to have "love" in their titles at all.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It is not a problem at all for three consecutive songs to have ‘love’ in their titles.

But, at the same time, the change of the track's title does not bother me considering that I am not interested at all in posthumous compilations & their success.
 
Re: What you think about invincible album?

It's very weak, especially for an MJ album. You Rock my World and Butterflies are great songs though.
 
My problems with Invincible are that I don't think there is enough variety, I think there are too many love songs on the album. Also, I don't like how there were so many writers on nearly every song. I can't think of any other problems, the 16 song tracklist never felt too long, the album is the perfect length imo.
 
Take the 10 best tracks from Invincible, and it just about tops anything else that was out at the time.

It's only weakness for me, is that it has too many slow tracks. But that's just down to my taste.

I can not accept that it's a 'poor' or 'weak' album though. It has way too many great tracks for that to be the case.

Perhaps someone should have reminded MJ that, on certain occasions, 'less is more'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top