The problems with Invincible

[KOPV]

Invincible would have never outsold Thriller, no album will ever! you can't emulate the time In history and the barriers it broke, that is done once.. Mind you Invincible was also released at a time where album sales started to decline, illegal DL was becoming big and there was not much fear implemented to prevent it then..

Napster started in 1999, streaming music was so hot.. things like iTunes and other more controlled ways of stream purchases barely was released in 2001 which sloowwwly started to gain attention AFTER people got scared into purchasing.

 

[barbee0715]

Invincible could have outsold Thriller, and I'd still say it was a disappointment compared to his previous work

Wow,really?I don't think so and one of the reason's I don't think Thriller will ever be beaten,apart from it being a super album is that it was first released on vinyl,people bought it and later it maybe got damaged and re-bought it,fans of MJ and the album later picked it up on cassette too and then came along CD's and those people that had to have it in their collection purchased it again and the same with itunes etc

Invincible would have never outsold Thriller, no album will ever!

I'm pretty sure analogue is saying "Even if Invincible outsold Thriller, he still wouldn't like it"-not that it was possible to outsell Thriller. In other words, big sales don't equal quality or great work.

 

[Michaels Lover]

I'm pretty sure analogue is saying "Even if Invincible outsold Thriller, he still wouldn't like it"-not that it was possible to outsell Thriller. In other words, big sales don't equal quality or great work.

Yeah, that's what he meant

 

[mj_frenzy]

With regards to if there were more videos and a Tour? That wouldnt change my opinion of how the album sounds to me. The era would be more appreciated because there would be more to discuss, but the Bad tour didn't make the Bad album any better. It was already THAT good.

A lot of people put blame on Sony and lack of promotion etc etc (I dont agree with this, the album sold as much as it sold) but lack of promotion doesnt change how a lot of people on here feel that it was the music that was the issue (myself included).

It has nothing to do with discussion only.

Part of the reason for its lower sales is indisputably lack of promotion. No matter how bad the songs were, ‘Invincible’ would have made even bigger sales with the appropriate promotion.

With nearly 6 millions copies in a few months, ‘Invincible’ was his fastest selling album. This means, without a doubt, that lack of promotion killed further sales (& probably wider appreciation).

Also, many times promotion has to do also with how people perceive the music itself on the album. For this reason, millions upon millions have been being invested in the marketing/promotion aspect of music. Further support of the album (music clips, tours, appearances, etc.) can remarkably boost the sales of an album.

If an artist & his record company do not believe in their music, then who will? This is an integral & very basic part of the marketing policy.

 

[innuendo141]

It has nothing to do with discussion only.

Part of the reason for its lower sales is indisputably lack of promotion. No matter how bad the songs were, ‘Invincible’ would have made even bigger sales with the appropriate promotion.

With nearly 6 millions copies in a few months, ‘Invincible’ was his fastest selling album. This means, without a doubt, that lack of promotion killed further sales (& probably wider appreciation).

Also, many times promotion has to do also with how people perceive the music itself on the album. For this reason, millions upon millions have been being invested in the marketing/promotion aspect of music. Further support of the album (music clips, tours, appearances, etc.) can remarkably boost the sales of an album.

If an artist & his record company do not believe in their music, then who will? This is an integral & very basic part of the marketing policy.

You are missing my point - The lack of promotion for Invincible had no effect on what I, and others, thought of the songs. In an earlier post I said there are 2 different ideas here - the problems with Invincible and why it didn't do well, and the problems with Invincible musically, which to me is more important than the amount of money available to promote. I'm talking musically. Marketing and promotion does not make an album sound better. That was my point, and the point a few others have made.

To me, and I think to several others here, Invincible does not meet the standards of the previous albums he released.

 

[innuendo141]

Didn't this happen with Prince at some point? Seems plausible.

In the event that's what happened that was a TERRIBLE choice on Michael's part. Invincible is the only album in his entire catalog that fans have to debate over whether or not it is good.

Agreed, because it would turn out, essentially, that be intentionally sabotaged his final album, leaving question marks like this hang over it... I'm going to assume this is not the case but as you say... It COULD be argued.

 

[SmoothMJ]

Wow,really?I don't think so and one of the reason's I don't think Thriller will ever be beaten,apart from it being a super album is that it was first released on vinyl,people bought it and later it maybe got damaged and re-bought it,fans of MJ and the album later picked it up on cassette too and then came along CD's and those people that had to have it in their collection purchased it again and the same with itunes etc.....it is a product of it's time,those kind of sales and people re-buying are over.....it's all now just stored on a pc or the likes..

Not sure I agree with this.

How come all the big albums released before Thriller, which first came out on vinyl, haven't managed to get anywhere near it's numbers?

Also, albums are so cheap and obtainable now - 99p anyone, without even leaving your home? - that multiple copies are bought more than ever before. Even downloads, being so cheap and easy, are not 'once for life' for most people. Plus, like me, people still like a cd copy to go with the downloaded version.

Nah. People have to realise, Thriller was a one-off, unique, out of this world phenomena. Michael Jackson + some of greatest songs ever conceived + short-films that mesmerised a generation = not fair on everyone else.

In fact, imagine what it could have done with a dedicated world-wide tour? ?

 

[HIStoric]

Also, albums are so cheap and obtainable now - 99p anyone, without even leaving your home? - that multiple copies are bought more than ever before.?

Where are you finding all these albums for 99p?

 

[mj_frenzy]

You are missing my point - The lack of promotion for Invincible had no effect on what I, and others, thought of the songs. In an earlier post I said there are 2 different ideas here - the problems with Invincible and why it didn't do well, and the problems with Invincible musically, which to me is more important than the amount of money available to promote. I'm talking musically. Marketing and promotion does not make an album sound better. That was my point, and the point a few others have made.

To me, and I think to several others here, Invincible does not meet the standards of the previous albums he released.

It seems you are confused.

These two ideas cannot be separated.

The lack of promotion for ‘Invincible’ had no effect on what you, & others, thought of the songs, but this is not the case at all to begin with. When an album has to be supported, so as to achieve (further) success, it has to be planned in a broader sense. This happens because the amount of promotion many times leads also to how it is perceived musically.

We have to be fair enough & realize that different supports (giant as compared to minimal ones) result also in how an album is musically perceived. That is my point that you missed.

 

[innuendo141]

It seems you are confused.

These two ideas cannot be separated.

The lack of promotion for ‘Invincible’ had no effect on what you, & others, thought of the songs, but this is not the case at all to begin with. When an album has to be supported, so as to achieve (further) success, it has to be planned in a broader sense. This happens because the amount of promotion many times leads also to how it is perceived musically.

We have to be fair enough & realize that different supports (giant as compared to minimal ones) result also in how an album is musically perceived. That is my point that you missed.

You are still missing my point, of course they can be seperated they are 2 entirely different issues.

I'm saying that the quality of the music on an album does not change because of whatever promotion goes with it. If it does then you don't know how to listen to music properly.

While "better" promotion would have maybe brought more sales etc. the sounds you are hearing do not change. If I don't like a song, I don't suddenly like the song if it becomes a hit for whatever reason.

 

[Michaels Lover]

The Unbreakable video sounds kinda... ridiculous honestly. Sounds like a Bieber video plot.

I don't know what that is, but I was being half sarcastic/half serious

Threatened was also rumored to be yet another haunted house type video in the vein of Thriller and Ghosts. So pretty much a retread of what he's already done twice before. Pass.

Thriller is not about a haunted house. Ghosts and Thriller are 2 completely different videos...
and I don't see a problem with making several videos with the same theme, as long as they are different. if a director made 2 different movies that you love, with the same theme, and he were to make a 3rd one, would you not watch it? not saying it is necessarily a good movie, just because he made 2 good ones...but you don't know that till you've watched it, and would you not be curious to see if it was just as good? or sequels? of course they have to be good as well, but how many movies doesn't have like a zillion sequels? not all of them are good...anyway, what I'm saying is, if you like someone's previous work, wouldn't you be interested in the next one? even if it's the same theme? staying on the topic of horror, I happen to love it, and I think it's awesome he did these 2 short films...wouldn't mind if he had done more. of course I don't know how you feel about this genre, but the same goes for all genres...horror was just an example, because that was the subject already...this took be 30 minutes to type, and now I forgot what the point of this post was...

 

[innuendo141]

...this took be 30 minutes to type, and now I forgot what the point of this post was...

Christ did I laugh just now

 

[MJInnocent]

I'm pretty sure analogue is saying "Even if Invincible outsold Thriller, he still wouldn't like it"-not that it was possible to outsell Thriller. In other words, big sales don't equal quality or great work.

Ahh OK,I just stuck my head in through the door and couldn't believe my eyes.

Not sure I agree with this.

How come all the big albums released before Thriller, which first came out on vinyl, haven't managed to get anywhere near it's numbers?

Nah. People have to realise, Thriller was a one-off, unique, out of this world phenomena. Michael Jackson + some of greatest songs ever conceived + short-films that mesmerised a generation = not fair on everyone else.

Yes of course the albums main selling point is that it was so good,I mean nearly every man and his dog owned a copy in the 80's but the albums sales now are not a total of who bought it on one particular format,it is a culmination of all there has been therefore creating astronomical sales fiqures which we see today.

Other big selling albums haven't had the same pull as Thriller over the years,simple as that.

 

[mj_frenzy]

You are still missing my point, of course they can be seperated they are 2 entirely different issues.

I'm saying that the quality of the music on an album does not change because of whatever promotion goes with it. If it does then you don't know how to listen to music properly.

While "better" promotion would have maybe brought more sales etc. the sounds you are hearing do not change. If I don't like a song, I don't suddenly like the song if it becomes a hit for whatever reason.

Again, your response is completely off the mark.

Technically, yes, the sound itself does not change at all with promotion or not. But obviously I talked about the perception of the music & how it can extremely easily fluctuate when it is subjected to different factors (including, of course, promotion).

Artists & record companies know it very well, that’s why they will never stop to adequately promote their records. To claim that there is no connection (even a subconscious one) sounds rather naïve.

Finally, nobody can suggest a proper way to listening to the music. You should not forget that music is highly subjective & its perception/appeal can be completely different not only among different people but also on the same exact person during different time periods.

 

[SmoothMJ]

Where are you finding all these albums for 99p?

Millions have been bought, over the years, from places like Google. Go ask Lady Ga Ga.

 

[innuendo141]

Again, your response is completely off the mark.

Technically, yes, the sound itself does not change at all with promotion or not. But obviously I talked about the perception of the music & how it can extremely easily fluctuate when it is subjected to different factors (including, of course, promotion).

Artists & record companies know it very well, that’s why they will never stop to adequately promote their records. To claim that there is no connection (even a subconscious one) sounds rather naïve.

Finally, nobody can suggest a proper way to listening to the music. You should not forget that music is highly subjective & its perception/appeal can be completely different not only among different people but also on the same exact person during different time periods.

I don't think I am off the mark considering you replied to my post saying that I was wrong with what I think, which I still believe to be right. QUality of the music and promotion do not and should not go hand in hand. Good promotion doesn't make a sh1t album sound better.

OK then I just completely disagree with you on this. To me a song is either good or it's not. I don't let anything else come between what my head makes of the noises being played. You may call it naive, but I call it listening to music. I'm not saying that promotion wasn't a factor. My original point was that there are 2 separate issues here, which is evident on this thread alone.

 

[HIStoric]

Millions have been bought, over the years, from places like Google. Go ask Lady Ga Ga.

Yeah, the odd album. You make it sound like it's commonplace for many albums to be permanently sold this cheap when in reality it is not. I can't just hop on iTunes or Google Play and download Sgt. Peppers for 99 cents. Or Dangerous. Or DSOTM. Or Nevermind. Or Beauty Behind the Madness. Or 1989. Or x. Or 25. Or Purpose.

Yes, sometimes Google Play will offer albums for free or at a low price to entice customers to their service, and it's happened with a number of albums (like with Thriller and more recently that ELV1S album) but they have never been downloaded on such a scale that has even remotely threatened Thriller. In addition, these promotions have only been run for a matter of days, maybe a week. You'll find the vast majority of albums are sold digitally for similar prices to their compact disc counterparts (naturally give or take some amount). It's really not something I would really consider as threatening to the sales of Thriller, certainly not at this point in time or in the near future.

Also with Gaga, Amazon approached her and bought a large quantity of her new album in full and resold it at 99c for the sole purpose of advertising it's new cloud service. Gaga and her label had very little to actually do with the idea. Now keeping in mind how big she was in 2011 and yet still, during the first week of sale, she only sold 400,000 99c copies through Amazon (600,000 full-cost copies elsewhere in the USA first week). That's not a lot when compared to Thriller. It also eventually caused Billboard etc to introduce rules that required certain price points (which, btw, is more than $1) for an album to be classified as a proper sale.

Another more recent, similar case of this is with Rihanna's new album ANTI, where Billboard and Neilson refused to acknowledge the free downloads of Rihanna's ANTI; albums that Samsung similarly paid in full and redistributed for free. While the RIAA does currently acknowledge these "sales" and takes them into account (which, once again, was a small amount - a few hundred thousand), it is very possible their rules might change if this becomes more precedent. I certainly hope they do.

So yes, while some digital albums have been sold via one service for an extremely low price, they have yet to be sold on a scale that actually threatens Thriller, never mind they're only available at such prices for such a short period of time. On top of this, more and more charting companies are moving against acknowledging this practise. If you want to buy an album online via iTunes/Google Play, 99.99% of the time it will not be as cheap as 99 cents. If they were, my digital album purchases would go up through the roof

 

[AlwaysThere]

Also, many times promotion has to do also with how people perceive the music itself on the album. For this reason, millions upon millions have been being invested in the marketing/promotion aspect of music. Further support of the album (music clips, tours, appearances, etc.) can remarkably boost the sales of an album.

Promotion has nothing to do with how people perceive the music itself.

There are dozens of albums released annually that are commercial failures yet are considered excellent albums, and vice versa. Sales numbers and promotional efforts and music videos are completely irrelevant - at the end of the day, the music on the album is all that matters.

If I didn't know Michael's sales numbers, my opinions on each of his albums would be the exact same.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Christ did I laugh just now

haha!! I was sedated...and tired

 

[wonderouzdj2]

to me beautiful girl is the worst that Ive heard from an MJ release (so yeah we are all different)... Would have liked it to be leaked but I don't even think its worth using on ultimate collection, Its the only MJ song I can say that I've only listened a handful of times.

I agree 100% might be the only 1 my ears can bare to hear. I'm not a big fan of b.o.j either tho myself

 

[wonderouzdj2]

isn't the guy saying that a paparazzi photographer?? that's what I've always thought, since it's there...never thought about it was a fan

Same here. I always KNEW it was paparazzi. Matter of fact, in the oprah outtakes,it's a guy that's says "1 more picture" & takes about 10more & Michael says "you said 1 more picture" & oprah says how much more publicity does this need!?

 

[mj_frenzy]

Promotion has nothing to do with how people perceive the music itself.

There are dozens of albums released annually that are commercial failures yet are considered excellent albums, and vice versa. Sales numbers and promotional efforts and music videos are completely irrelevant - at the end of the day, the music on the album is all that matters.

If I didn't know Michael's sales numbers, my opinions on each of his albums would be the exact same.

Of course, there are dozens of albums released annually that are commercial failures yet are considered excellent albums, & vice versa.

What I am saying is when artists think beyond the music itself, & place it effectively into a connective context (music clips, etc.), this many times can lead the audience to appreciate more, thus perceive differently, their music.

That’s why, I pinpointed the importance of the effective support.

But, if the music itself is not good at all, then there is no use at all in flogging a dead horse.

 

[innuendo141]

Of course, there are dozens of albums released annually that are commercial failures yet are considered excellent albums, & vice versa.

What I am saying is when artists think beyond the music itself, & place it effectively into a connective context (music clips, etc.), this many times can lead the audience to appreciate more, thus perceive differently, their music.

That’s why, I pinpointed the importance of the effective support.

But, if the music itself is not good at all, then there is no use at all in flogging a dead horse.

If this applies to you, then fair enough, but I agree with AlwaysThere. How I hear, or perceive a song is based entirely on my taste and what I like to hear.

A music video, a performance on Jimmy Kimmel and a concert will not in any way change how a song sounds for me.

 

[SmoothMJ]

Album promotion works. That's why labels spend millions on it.

Invincible was let down by not having enough quality short films released, to keep the momentum going.

'Cry' - as a follow up to YRMW? Who the hell thought that was a good idea!?

Millions of people never got to hear the real quality on the album. I'm not sure exactly who's fault that was, but it was a huge mistake, and the album's longgevity suffered.

 

[Dangerous1991]

Tricky one for me when the debate of Invincible always arises.
It was a different concept for Michael IMO - I think the direction he took with this was completely intentional in terms of creating something to either debate, change direction or show that a 43 year old was creating new popular cultured music.
We have to remember the direction that 'music' was going in at this time, not just MJ, funky slow jams, R&B, 2001 was a time when production was starting to be recognised as much or more than the artist itself, people become far more conscious of who was involved in the creating of the album as much as who is the artist.
Darkchild was young and fresh and was the sound of the era (Brandy, Destiny's Child etc) having huge hits in his brand of music. Rodney Jerkins also stated himself that the original material he present/they worked on with MJ was more like 'his older sound' (You Rock My World was a an example of this, as this is one that MJ kept) but the change of direction on the album on Michaels part I feel was to set/break his personal boundaries again, and to push himself - Lets face it, we had never heard a sound/vocal like 2000 Watts from Michael before, maybe it was us the fans that had the real culture shock and not the direction that MJ was going was the actual issue. I remember playing Invincible to a friend when we was on holiday in 2003 I think it was, about 3/4 years later he text me saying "Music on the radio now sounds like what MJ created on Invincible 4 years ago" For me, and for him showed that Michael was ahead of the game again, no matter whether we liked the music or not, MJ always had an art of creating timeless music, I think Dangerous and invincible are the best examples of this personally.
In terms of the material, Whatever Happens, You Rock My World, Speechless, Butterflies I think are top top MJ tracks, a real credit to the album, I have no issues like many do with 2000 Watts, the fact that MJ took voice training to hit these low notes at 42 showed his dedication and his want to change perception of music and possibly his music.
The album to me is wonderful, I love the older sounding Michael, I think his vocals are the best they have ever been, crisp, sharp, rough and delicate.

The album is what it is, it is the marmite of MJ albums

At the end of the day, we are speaking about the direction of the album and what we love and hate about it 15 years on and 7 years after Michael's death, isn't that so MJ? The fact we have the feeling around the album after this longs shows that MJ's objective to creatively shape his future sound, got us all talking.

 

[Graf]

Of course, there are dozens of albums released annually that are commercial failures yet are considered excellent albums, & vice versa.

What I am saying is when artists think beyond the music itself, & place it effectively into a connective context (music clips, etc.), this many times can lead the audience to appreciate more, thus perceive differently, their music.

That’s why, I pinpointed the importance of the effective support.

But, if the music itself is not good at all, then there is no use at all in flogging a dead horse.

I agree totally agree with this. The tours/music videos/movies are all able to enhance the experience of an artists music. :yes:

Imagine if there was a tour + ton of music videos + movie for Invincible just like we saw with the Bad album. It would definitely make people perceive Invincible in a much more positive way.

 

[Deleted member 9375]

It's complicated for me. So very complicated. If I take my fandom out of the equation and look at it technically, there's a few problems with the album. First of all there's simply too many tracks on it, which even if they were all stellar classic Jackson tracks, the opertunity for play through without wanting to skip is reduced. 11 or 12 tracks would have made for a more concise experience. I know he'd already put more tracks on Dangerous and HIStory, and it's a very 90's and Noughties thing to fill the space on the cd but that doesn't mean you should fill the space just because, and I think the less is more philosophy is paramount to making a classic album.

The song sequencing is a bit messy. Front loaded with 3 loud bangers that are in the same style was a mistake in my opinion. I actually love those tracks but they would have been served better had they been spread across the album to give it a sense of thematic fluidity. Too many ballads clumped together in the middle, remove 3 of them and use them as b-sides! This should have been an era in where there was 7 singles with amazing short films and jammed with b-sides. But then the behind the scenes politics played into that.

With regards MJ telling Sony it was his last album for them, I have to be honest and say I disagree with the opinion "Why would Sony promote his last album?" For me the question is Why wouldn't they? He sold more albums than anyother artist in the history of music and royalties are something that are ongoing from album sales and radio play. Even if his career had dipped by this point his music always and will continue to be a staple within popular music and pop culture. He's an artist that you'll always stock in your shop or play on your radio, he's part of the template, simple as. Had I been running Sony at that time I would have been thinking and saying "This is his last album for us and I'm going to make sure it's one of the biggest events in modern history!" Heck, I would have gone all out and made the term "His last and final album for Sony Music!" I would have put the vibes out this "this could be his last album EVER!" which is ironic as it was.

I dont agree with either this ideal "Michael was wrong, he shouldn't have done or said that etc" Michael was the artist here and the most talented artists are a lot of the time the most insecure, the most over emotional, the most overwhelmed people in the world. The label should know in 2001 that a Michael Jackson is a rare and delicate thing and needs nourishing and understanding. And Mottola by all accounts was not a nice guy and made racist remarks on occasion and also treated Mariah Carey like absolute crap. So no, in that regard I don't think Michael was entirely wrong. He could have gone about it differently, absolutely, but Sony should have backed the album to the hilt and allowed him his artistic freedom in what singles he wanted and what short films he wanted to make. If it had been Prince they were dealing with it would have been a different story! Nobody was ever gonna tell Prince what his album sleeve gonna be, what songs he was going to release because Prince would not take that from anyone, and if he sold as many albums as MJ he sure as hell would have had them bending over backwards to acomadate him.

So my difficulty with Invincible is the wrong song selection, album sequencing of tracks and the fact there's too many songs on it, Michael Jackson going about his dispute in wrong way and the way Sony missed an opertunity to sell a few more million copies. No MJ didn't tour, lots of superstars release albums and don't tour. I think he earned the right at that stage to skip touring and had Sony encourged his creativity he may have have had a change of heart, like he toured with Dangerous after saying numerous times the Bad Tour was his last. Sony are making billions still today off of MJ.

 

[KOPV]

If this applies to you, then fair enough, but I agree with AlwaysThere. How I hear, or perceive a song is based entirely on my taste and what I like to hear.

A music video, a performance on Jimmy Kimmel and a concert will not in any way change how a song sounds for me.

While we all develop our own sound we like we are all influenced on what our atmosphere showcases... That can simply be proven by demographics in specific states (countries) and the sounds they listen to.. And when we hear specific sounds/rhythms/styles enough our brains naturally adapt..

That's why even some songs can "Grow" on you..


If the general public only enjoyed what they 'currently' have 'taste' for there would have never been evolution of music... through each era of music we (as people) adapt to what is being 'fed' to us...

Music evolves because of someone's or groups of peoples vision...and the 'listeners' adapt.. You know it took years before the general public accepted Rock... it took years for the general public to accept rap... and so on.. but when it's fed to the general public enough our minds fallow. It's simple phycology.

same goes with anything (fashion/film style/religion/cultural habit)

 

[innuendo141]

While we all develop our own sound we like we are all influenced on what our atmosphere showcases... That can simply be proven by demographics in specific states (countries) and the sounds they listen to.. And when we hear specific sounds/rhythms/styles enough our brains naturally adapt..

That's why even some songs can "Grow" on you..


If the general public only enjoyed what they 'currently' have 'taste' for there would have never been evolution of music... through each era of music we (as people) adapt to what is being 'fed' to us...

Music evolves because of someone's or groups of peoples vision...and the 'listeners' adapt.. You know it took years before the general public accepted Rock... it took years for the general public to accept rap... and so on.. but when it's fed to the general public enough our minds fallow. It's simple phycology.

same goes with anything (fashion/film style/religion/cultural habit)

I had a big post written but I just deleted it, I can see where you (and others) are coming from with that. While I do agree songs can grow on you, I know that a music video won't make a song I don't like sound any better.

I just thought Invincible was poorly produced, didn't sound like and MJ album and had some sub-par songs. Lack of promotion or videos etc. has no effect on what I think of the music. I LOVE the album still, but I consider it to be the worst by a long shot. There are no songs I dislike, but I do not like most of the songs anywhere near as I like most of his other work.

Just needed to stress the point that I do not hate Invincible!

 

[Michaels Lover]

Tricky one for me when the debate of Invincible always arises.
It was a different concept for Michael IMO - I think the direction he took with this was completely intentional in terms of creating something to either debate, change direction or show that a 43 year old was creating new popular cultured music.
We have to remember the direction that 'music' was going in at this time, not just MJ, funky slow jams, R&B, 2001 was a time when production was starting to be recognised as much or more than the artist itself, people become far more conscious of who was involved in the creating of the album as much as who is the artist.
Darkchild was young and fresh and was the sound of the era (Brandy, Destiny's Child etc) having huge hits in his brand of music. Rodney Jerkins also stated himself that the original material he present/they worked on with MJ was more like 'his older sound' (You Rock My World was a an example of this, as this is one that MJ kept) but the change of direction on the album on Michaels part I feel was to set/break his personal boundaries again, and to push himself - Lets face it, we had never heard a sound/vocal like 2000 Watts from Michael before, maybe it was us the fans that had the real culture shock and not the direction that MJ was going was the actual issue. I remember playing Invincible to a friend when we was on holiday in 2003 I think it was, about 3/4 years later he text me saying "Music on the radio now sounds like what MJ created on Invincible 4 years ago" For me, and for him showed that Michael was ahead of the game again, no matter whether we liked the music or not, MJ always had an art of creating timeless music, I think Dangerous and invincible are the best examples of this personally.
In terms of the material, Whatever Happens, You Rock My World, Speechless, Butterflies I think are top top MJ tracks, a real credit to the album, I have no issues like many do with 2000 Watts, the fact that MJ took voice training to hit these low notes at 42 showed his dedication and his want to change perception of music and possibly his music.
The album to me is wonderful, I love the older sounding Michael, I think his vocals are the best they have ever been, crisp, sharp, rough and delicate.

The album is what it is, it is the marmite of MJ albums

At the end of the day, we are speaking about the direction of the album and what we love and hate about it 15 years on and 7 years after Michael's death, isn't that so MJ? The fact we have the feeling around the album after this longs shows that MJ's objective to creatively shape his future sound, got us all talking.

YES!!!! best post yet. this is EXACTLY how I've always felt about Invincible, word for word (ok not exactly), and why I don't have a problem with it, and never did. I loved it since the first time I heard it
Michael ain't stupid :cheeky: