Why did MJ not support Invincible with a tour?

Arunas

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Im not well informed about this, but to me, it seems the release of Invincible was rather... quiet would be the word, why was there no tour? By then he was already on an extensive break from touring since history tour, not including the one off shows he did here and there.
 
Blame Shmuley Boteach trying to get him off drugs and forcing him to do this and that. Plus by 2002, he was having Money troubles and felt quite worn out I guess. Plus lets face it, Invincible was not the smash that many had expected it to be. Maybe Sony decided it had not sold enough copies to warrant a tour.
Also MJ had had some issues with health after the History World tour.
 
My honest opinion is he just didn't want to do one. He didn't even perform any Invincible tracks when appearing at awards shows, just doing Dangerous (and HTW and BOW). No inclusion of any Invincible songs on TII (Apart from Speechless and Threatened).

9/11 had an impact on this decision too from what I've read.
 
It could have been a number of reasons

1. He wanted to spend more time with his children
2. He didn't tour because of his conflict with Sony
3. He didn't tour because of health reasons. During that era he didn't look to be in the best of shape (IMO)
4. He simply just didn't feel like it
 
MJ just didn't like to tour. I think he just decided not to tour.
 
I´ve read there were plans for a tour but it was cancelled when 9/11 happened
 
Invincible definitely came out at a strange time. I think "You Rock My World" entered the Billboard Hot 100 the week of 9/11 and the album followed just 5 weeks later. The biggest factor was probably Michael and his team struggling against Sony head Tommy Mattolla. The album was never going to do Thriller numbers, but it would have done better if everyone had been getting along and, bottom line, the tour was probably tied to the success of the album.

I did like all of the different sleeves that were available for Invincible week 1. :)

screen-shot-2013-10-30-at-8-36-08-am.png
 
I honestly didn't like that Invincible had 5 different covers when it was released. I felt it was just a way to boost sales through hard core fans that would want to buy all 5 colors. And that strategy worked on me!
 
Arunas;4100309 said:
Im not well informed about this, but to me, it seems the release of Invincible was rather... quiet would be the word, why was there no tour? By then he was already on an extensive break from touring since history tour, not including the one off shows he did here and there.

Cory Rooney claimed that MJ confided in him the following:

“Cory, I can’t tour anymore. I’m not gonna tour anymore. Ok? Because it will kill me...Well, it’s because when I get ready for a tour I get dehydrated. I don’t eat. I don’t drink. I don’t sleep. I put so much of myself into preparing for a tour.”

The aforementioned statements took place in 2001.
 
The derailing of the promotional campaign probably meant that no one even considered it.
 
People can blame everyone to the moon and back on the "lack of success" of Invincible and why MJ didn't tour. The fact of the matter is money was not the issue to tour simply because a tour is a money generator not a detractor. Michael did not like touring and he simply didn't want to... You add the fact he did not like touring with the stress Invincible had surrounding it PLUS the age of his children at the time.. Michael simply didn't do it, believe me Sony would want him to..

And with promotion it was a big cluster f***.. I mean how is a record label and an artist going to properly plan promotion when they are fighting.. Michael felt he wasn't properly represented by Sony and how/why would Sony continue forking out money while an artist is putting them threw the mud?

Both ways it was not going to work..

To be a little more on topic though, Michael did not tour because he did not want to... I just think it wasn't a good time in his life to be focusing on a release of an album and promotion that needs to be done around it..
 
Sony wanted Michael to go out on a tour for Invincible and he pretty much said no every step of the way.

Every major label canceled tours and/or tour preparations in the aftermath of 9/11 including Sony. I think it was around spring of 2002 when they kickstarted discussions again and were pushing for Michael to do his first US tour since the late 1980s.

Both Jermaine and Michael Prince said there was an Invincible World Tour prepped for spring 2002, which simply isn't true. Michael wasn't contractually obligated to tour, nor did he have any desire to.

Also, in regards to the "Sony didn't promote Invincible properly" argument: Michael told Tommy Motolla in 2000 that he was exiting his contract after Invincible because of the credits dispute. Sony, seeing as this was Michael's final album under their brand, didn't pull out all the stops as they had before. No record label is going to go above and beyond for an artist who's about to make million for a rival.

Michael didn't make it any easier on himself for starting the whole "Motolla is a racist!" argument or the London bus incident.

Sony is at fault too for not giving Michael any say in how singles played out. Had they given him whatever freedom he wanted and negotiated the terms of his contract (which was pretty much null and void after History), he may have been open to staying.

So let's stray away from the Sony attacks. It's not just them.
 
Sony wanted Michael to go out on a tour for Invincible and he pretty much said no every step of the way.

Every major label canceled tours and/or tour preparations in the aftermath of 9/11 including Sony. I think it was around spring of 2002 when they kickstarted discussions again and were pushing for Michael to do his first US tour since the late 1980s.

Both Jermaine and Michael Prince said there was an Invincible World Tour prepped for spring 2002, which simply isn't true. Michael wasn't contractually obligated to tour, nor did he have any desire to.

Also, in regards to the "Sony didn't promote Invincible properly" argument: Michael told Tommy Motolla in 2000 that he was exiting his contract after Invincible because of the credits dispute. Sony, seeing as this was Michael's final album under their brand, didn't pull out all the stops as they had before. No record label is going to go above and beyond for an artist who's about to make million for a rival.

Michael didn't make it any easier on himself for starting the whole "Motolla is a racist!" argument or the London bus incident.

Sony is at fault too for not giving Michael any say in how singles played out. Had they given him whatever freedom he wanted and negotiated the terms of his contract (which was pretty much null and void after History), he may have been open to staying.

So let's stray away from the Sony attacks. It's not just them.

Thank you for being one of the few MJ fans I've seen actually talk about Sony's side of this particular (and I stress those words) argument. To me, I could understand Michael's view on things and I empathized with him, I really did, but for a grown man to roam around London on a double decker bus with a megaphone and poster signs stating those views were, frankly, a little embarrassing. I loved his speeches when he was being intelligent and articulate, and although he didn't give a s**t at that point about what the public thought of him, that whole bus incident just made him look like an unhinged megalomaniac, which is really unfortunate given the seriousness of the message he was trying to get across.
 
mjprince1976;4100316 said:
Plus lets face it, Invincible was not the smash that many had expected it to be. Maybe Sony decided it had not sold enough copies to warrant a tour.

MJ was still a megastar in the early 00’s (especially in Europe).

So, despite the quality of the songs on ‘Invincible’, I think his concerts would have sold out during that period.
 
Both MJ and Sony are to blame. Michael should have kept his mouth shut and not said a word to Sony about his contract coming to an end, and Sony failed MJ for the promotion side of things. So to say none of what happened isn't on Sony is completely false. They forced Michael to choose the weakest possible track as the 1st single, and it didn't do jack on the charts. Michael did his job for promotion. He did the magazine interviews, he went on MTV TRL, he did the record store album signing.He did plenty to support his albums early success.
 
He wasn't in the best shape then, anyone who takes off their rose coloured glasses could see that.

Plus imagine a set list that had songs from Invincible in it, they wouldn't have stood well against his former works, on,y the hardcore fans would have appreciated them.

Not to start another 'what do you think of Invincible thread' or anything ;)
 
Album sales are irrelevent. A tour would have helped sales, or if nothing else been a success on it's own. MJ was still one of the few artists who could still fill stadiums/arenas without any current hits (like Madonna/u2/prince/pink floyd/etc.)

Him probably not being interested/9-11/label issues probably cancelled any possible plans.

While I do think Sony could have done more or things differently, it's really silly to blame Sony and Tommy Motolla.
I never liked the nonsense campaign MJ did against him.
Especially after hearing Tommys side of what happened during that time.
I know we as fanboys tend to ignore other things, but really, it's not like his label WANTED the album to flop. They actually did a lot and at some point, they can't fulfill all of MJ's wants because it got too out of hand with budget reasons.

Having an uptempo pop song was probably the better move as a first single than Unbreakable (which should have been 2nd or third single tbh).

They really did miss an opportunity by NOT doing a Butterflies video, too (but MJ may also have had a part in NOT doing one either).
 
I also thought "You Rock My World" was a great choice for the first single.

Honestly, I wasn't surprised that he didn't want to tour with 'Invincible.' I always wondered why he wanted to tour with 'History.'??? I saw a lot of pix and video behind the scenes coming over from Europe then, and it looked like it was killing him. Was it just to promote the album, or monetary reasons, both, or something else?
 
Album sales are irrelevent. A tour would have helped sales, or if nothing else been a success on it's own. MJ was still one of the few artists who could still fill stadiums/arenas without any current hits (like Madonna/u2/prince/pink floyd/etc.)

Him probably not being interested/9-11/label issues probably cancelled any possible plans.

While I do think Sony could have done more or things differently, it's really silly to blame Sony and Tommy Motolla.
I never liked the nonsense campaign MJ did against him.
Especially after hearing Tommys side of what happened during that time.
I know we as fanboys tend to ignore other things, but really, it's not like his label WANTED the album to flop. They actually did a lot and at some point, they can't fulfill all of MJ's wants because it got too out of hand with budget reasons.

Having an uptempo pop song was probably the better move as a first single than Unbreakable (which should have been 2nd or third single tbh).

They really did miss an opportunity by NOT doing a Butterflies video, too (but MJ may also have had a part in NOT doing one either).

Great post Atlas. I feel the same about whole "$ony" conspiracy thing. I cringe when I think of it. I never found MJ to have a valid reason for that whole campaign. I still see a lot of fans who maintain the whole Sony destroying Invincible etc. Etc. Move on. MJ did!
 
Album sales are irrelevent. A tour would have helped sales, or if nothing else been a success on it's own. MJ was still one of the few artists who could still fill stadiums/arenas without any current hits (like Madonna/u2/prince/pink floyd/etc.)

Him probably not being interested/9-11/label issues probably cancelled any possible plans.

While I do think Sony could have done more or things differently, it's really silly to blame Sony and Tommy Motolla.
I never liked the nonsense campaign MJ did against him.
Especially after hearing Tommys side of what happened during that time.
I know we as fanboys tend to ignore other things, but really, it's not like his label WANTED the album to flop. They actually did a lot and at some point, they can't fulfill all of MJ's wants because it got too out of hand with budget reasons.

Having an uptempo pop song was probably the better move as a first single than Unbreakable (which should have been 2nd or third single tbh).

They really did miss an opportunity by NOT doing a Butterflies video, too (but MJ may also have had a part in NOT doing one either).

Great post.
 
It is so terribly refreshing to see people who genuinely care for Michael (both his craft and his life) express constructive and unselfishly motivated criticism of certain choices of his. I think it's sad when people raise him on a pedestal soooo abnormally high that they don't conceive him capable to make any mistake. As strange as it may seem to some, the man was part of the human race and he had his share of blame in certain things. The fact that he was quite imperfect, as most of us, humans tend to be, makes him all the more lovable in my eyes :)



P.S. Callin' people "devilish" is not the most mature of actions, but hey......he's still quite cool in my book, occasional poor choice of words included :p
 
Last edited:
He himself said in an interview that he doesn't like touring at all and that he goes through hell. The sales were not a hinderance at all in fact the tour would've definitely boosted them.
(PS
And I don't think prince or pink floyd could sell out shows as easily as MJ or maybe Madonna could. Prince and Pink Floyd generally appeared only on lists, whereas the M's still made hit albums and went on huge tours throughout the late decades and were generally much more well known and relevant worldwide.)
 
It's not that I want to bash Mike, but let's be honest... IF Michael decided to tour it would have been the same as the HIStory tour and the Anniversary show. Great dancing, but lotsss of lip syncing.
 
It's not that I want to bash Mike, but let's be honest... IF Michael decided to tour it would have been the same as the HIStory tour and the Anniversary show. Great dancing, but lotsss of lip syncing.

And even then, I don't think the dancing would have been that great (By his standards) because he was not in the best shape back then. In fact, when I think about it, I'm glad that there wasn't an Invincible Tour.
 
Anyone who couldn't see that Mottola was boycotting/sabotaging Invincible are the ones with the "rose-colored" glasses. It was obvious to anyone who didn't fall for the media manipulation. Mottola was "devilish" ( a nice word for "devil"). A former record executive from Sony said after Michael's death, that everything that he said about Sony,especially Mottola was the truth. There is no way in hell that Michael did and said what he did without a valid reason. There was virtually NO PROMTION for Invincible. Nothing to announce his album in the stores,no posters, no promo extras,etc. There were NO adverts or commercials from Sony about the album. Mottola was sabotaging Invincible every way that he could. Mottola knew what he was doing was wrong and Michael knew it. I think that the way that Michael lashed out was very uncharacteristic of him. Imo, he did it because he had enough of Motolla's "devilish"(#%*#%) tactics. Michael also said that Mottola/Sony were basically trying to make him lose the Beatles catalog by sabotaging this album. I believe what Michael was saying. That is the very reason that Mottola did his "devilish" deeds.
Whether some of you agree or disagree with HOW Michael lashed out is your right. However, it is NOT right to act as if he had no reason to do what he did. He had a REASON. That is the very reason that Mottola was FIRED. HE was the one who decided to not promote Invincible or basically sabotage it. He was the one releasing negative publicity to Roger Friedman and others in media. Michael knew this, Mottola knew it and the "heads" of Sony figured it out and pushed Mottola out the door. It seems that even some fans fell for the manipulation that Mottola and the media spewed out. How sad!
"
 
Last edited:
Anyone who couldn't see that Mottola was boycotting/sabotaging Invincible are the ones with the "rose-colored" glasses. It was obvious to anyone who didn't fall for the media manipulation. Mottola was "devilish" ( a nice word for "devil"). A former record executive from Sony said after Michael's death, that everything that he said about Sony,especially Mottola was the truth. There is no way in hell that Michael did and said what he did without a valid reason. There was virtually NO PROMTION for Invincible. Nothing to announce his album in the stores,no posters, no promo extras,etc. There were NO adverts or commercials from Sony about the album. Mottola was sabotaging Invincible every way that he could. Mottola knew what he was doing was wrong and Michael knew it. I think that the way that Michael lashed out was very uncharacteristic of him. Imo, he did it because he had enough of Motolla's "devilish"(#%*#%) tactics.
Whether some of you agree or disagree with HOW Michael lashed out is your right. However, it is NOT right to act as if he had no reason to do what he did. He had a REASON. That is the very reason that Mottola was FIRED. HE was the one who decided to not promote Invincible or basically sabotage it. He was the one releasing negative publicity to Roger Friedman and others in media. Michael knew this, Mottola knew it and the "heads" of Sony figured it out and pushed Mottola out the door. It seems that even some fans fell for the manipulation that Mottola and the media spewed out. How sad!
"[/QUOTE]
 
He himself said in an interview that he doesn't like touring at all and that he goes through hell. The sales were not a hinderance at all in fact the tour would've definitely boosted them.
(PS
And I don't think prince or pink floyd could sell out shows as easily as MJ or maybe Madonna could. Prince and Pink Floyd generally appeared only on lists, whereas the M's still made hit albums and went on huge tours throughout the late decades and were generally much more well known and relevant worldwide.)

I agree. Even with all of the crap thrown at Michael , he was still HUGELY popular. That was evident with the THIS IS iT tour. Michael had no album or new single to promote. The media was bashing him on a daily basis; YET, he sold out 50 shows in ONE city and sold enough to sell out 50 MORE shows, if he had decided to do them. No one has ever done that before and I don't think anyone ever will. Just the thought of what he did is mind-boggling. Michael's popularity suffered with the false allegations and media; however, he was still as popular, sold as many records and concert tickets as his peers; and NONE (in fact, no one in history ) of them have or will ever have the backlash and contrived media manipulation that Michael endured.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top