Why was everything out of place/wrong with Invincible?

[Hiker]

some really take it too far, acting like this is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind.

.... talk about passion!

 

[dethorro]

His speaking voice was not naturally high, but deep.

Again, no. He was a light-lyric tenor and could belt G5’s in his late 20s. If his speaking voice were naturally deep, he would have either been a baritone or a bass, which he clearly wasn’t, because a baritone or a bass usually can‘t reach anything higher than a B4 or C5 using mixed voice.

It isn’t hard to hear, that Michael wasn’t very comfortable with his lower range, at least not as comfortable as with his high range. As I have mentioned in my previous post, when he sings the low notes in Burn This Disco Out, it doesn’t have the same resonance, it doesn’t sound as natural as his mid- and high range. This is a clear indicator that his voice was naturally high.

He wanted his speaking voice to have a softer and more youthful tone publicly, that is why, he used to fake his higher speaking voice on many public occasions.

If we were to believe this theory, he would have had to have started using this “fake voice” in 1975, because it has been high on every appearance, home movie or recording existent between 1975-1993.

He even admitted that to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (in 2000-2001) for example, when he said to him that he faked his higher speaking voice while accepting all those awards at the Grammy Awards Ceremony in 1984.

I would like to see the exact quote and understand the context before I comment anything.

One can hear his real, deep voice in the live 'In The Closet' segment (HIStory Tour), where he feels very comfortable with it.

As I‘ve said, he could reach low notes, especially low for a high tenor, I can’t deny that. What I was saying in my post was that I don’t believe that he was necessarily faking his higher voice and that even this example of him performing In The Closet is not an example of his real voice, but simply him interpreting a song.

In fact, he was interpreting a song which is meant to be sensual, which explains him playing with his voice in certain ways and, perhaps, trying to sound more masculine. Furthermore, he was quite sick for a great portion of the HIStory Tour and when you’re ill, your voice tends to sound deeper.

We have his private home movies from 1999 with his children and we can hear him talk to them. Why aren’t they surprised that their father is suddenly speaking, using a much higher tone than usual? Why would he bother to fake his voice on a private recording?

The real, deep voice runs in the Jackson family's genes.

Like, Janet Jackson whose real voice is actually deep, but she prefers to fake her higher speaking and singing voice on many occasions.

It is true because it was confirmed by his long-time, personal vocal coach Seth Riggs.

I am very aware of Seth Riggs claiming this and I can’t contradict him since he is certainly a great professional who knows what he is doing and what he is talking about.

I do, however, believe that he was exaggerating when he said that Michael‘s natural voice was deep, for dramatic effect, in order to emphasise that Michael never sounded like the caricature many people do when imitating his voice and that there was more depth to his voice than one might expect.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Lol this thread again. It’s to the point that this has become a fetish of some kind. I get it, to me Invincible is my least favorite MJ solo album because of a multitude of reasons but some really take it too far, acting like this is the worst thing that ever happened to mankind. He released an album and tried something different and didn’t succeed (imo), well that’s the name of the game, especially if you have been consistently putting out classic records since the 70s. The funny thing is Invincible wouldn’t be this hot topic of discussion if he had released an album in 2003 or after trial.

I mean, there's a lot more going on when we talk about why Invincible came out the way it did than "MJ trying something new and it not succeeding". Although I agree with your point generally that it's a topic that comes around once every few months lol.

 

[Pentum]

mj_frenzy, do you have the source of Seth Riggs explaining that 2000 Watts vocals were indeed lowered slightly?

 

[DuranDuran]

Other than Tito, none of the Jackson brothers really have a deep speaking voice, especially Jackie. Even Papa Joe's voice is not that low. I don't think Clint Eastwood has a low voice either. The actress Bea Arthur has a deeper voice than all of them. In singing voices, Toni Braxton & Anita Baker have deeper voices than El DeBarge or Ralph Tresvant. Ruth Pointer from The Pointer Sisters often sounds like a male singing.

 

[SmoothCriminal1995]

I like Invincible but it's the only album of Michael's I don't love. I feel jealously for those who love it, I wish I could appreciate more, that's the seed of my frustration

 

[mj_frenzy]

Again, no. He was a light-lyric tenor and could belt G5’s in his late 20s. If his speaking voice were naturally deep, he would have either been a baritone or a bass, which he clearly wasn’t, because a baritone or a bass usually can‘t reach anything higher than a B4 or C5 using mixed voice.

It isn’t hard to hear, that Michael wasn’t very comfortable with his lower range, at least not as comfortable as with his high range. As I have mentioned in my previous post, when he sings the low notes in Burn This Disco Out, it doesn’t have the same resonance, it doesn’t sound as natural as his mid- and high range. This is a clear indicator that his voice was naturally high.

If we were to believe this theory, he would have had to have started using this “fake voice” in 1975, because it has been high on every appearance, home movie or recording existent between 1975-1993.

I would like to see the exact quote and understand the context before I comment anything.

As I‘ve said, he could reach low notes, especially low for a high tenor, I can’t deny that. What I was saying in my post was that I don’t believe that he was necessarily faking his higher voice and that even this example of him performing In The Closet is not an example of his real voice, but simply him interpreting a song.

In fact, he was interpreting a song which is meant to be sensual, which explains him playing with his voice in certain ways and, perhaps, trying to sound more masculine. Furthermore, he was quite sick for a great portion of the HIStory Tour and when you’re ill, your voice tends to sound deeper.

We have his private home movies from 1999 with his children and we can hear him talk to them. Why aren’t they surprised that their father is suddenly speaking, using a much higher tone than usual? Why would he bother to fake his voice on a private recording?

I am very aware of Seth Riggs claiming this and I can’t contradict him since he is certainly a great professional who knows what he is doing and what he is talking about.

I do, however, believe that he was exaggerating when he said that Michael‘s natural voice was deep, for dramatic effect, in order to emphasise that Michael never sounded like the caricature many people do when imitating his voice and that there was more depth to his voice than one might expect.

A few years ago, Teddy Riley spoke at the Red Bull Music Academy.

He stated that a lot of people do not know that Michael Jackson had a real, deep voice.

He also revealed that it was Seth Riggs who made Michael Jackson talk high, which also means that Michael Jackson's real voice was naturally deep.

Talking high would then lead to having a high singing voice, as well.

Here is what Seth Riggs kept telling to Michael Jackson:

"No matter what you do, when you talk to people you talk high!" (Seth Riggs)

American author Joseph Vogel (in his 'Man In The Music' book) also writes that Michael Jackson sings with his real, deep voice (i.e., dropping down to baritone) in the '2000 Watts' song.

Liza Minnelli, David Gest, and other people very close to him for many years also confirmed his naturally deep voice, and that he used to fake a high voice on public occasions as a part of his public persona.

The exact quote (about the Grammy Awards Ceremony in 1984) is in Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's book.

mj_frenzy, do you have the source of Seth Riggs explaining that 2000 Watts vocals were indeed lowered slightly?

Seth Riggs did not speak about '2000 Watts' specifically.

But Canadian producer Stuart Brawley who worked as a sound engineer on the 'Invincible' album stated that Michael Jackson sings with his real, deep voice in that song.

Bur they were wrong! weren't they? The album was successful and Michael would have known that, not to mention the HIStory tour. So it does not seem plausible that Michael lost his confidence due to a bunch of corporate people.

The 'HIStory' album was successful but mainly because of its first disc with the classic hits.

Sony Music's top executives never believed in the potential of the second disc.

For this reason, the new songs came out coupled with his classic hits in order to boost the album's sales.

That move led also to widespread criticism, even from many of the singer's fans who did not like the fact that they were forced to buy also the first disc.

 

[ssj]

I think the true tragedy of Invincible is that it was his last album. Like someone said earlier, we wouldn't be talking about this so intensely if he'd put out another album a couple of years later. It's the last real thing he gave to us and even though there are some gems on this album, a lot of poor decisions made it weaker than it should have been. It's just unfair that his last discographical effort is an album which just isn't on par with his previous work. If the world wouldn't have treated him so unfairly he would have had the chance to put out another album and Invincible's "negative" impact wouldn't have been so tragic. But well, it's just the way it is now, and we can only imagine what a successor might have sounded like...

 

[Pentum]

Regarding Michael's speaking voice:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565374214806323200

 

[mj_frenzy]

Here is another example that shows that he had a naturally deep voice, but he preferred to fake a high-pitched voice publicly.

Listen to his first "umm" at the very start of his speech at the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (March, 2001) before switching over to his fake, high-pitched voice:

 

[dethorro]

Here is another example that shows that he had a naturally deep voice, but he preferred to fake a high-pitched voice publicly.

Listen to his first "umm" at the very start of his speech at the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (March, 2001) before switching over to his fake, high-pitched voice:

I’ve seen a meme of this floating around the internet, but in that video, it was edited in order to make the first “umm” sound way deeper than it actually was, while pitching up the rest.

The “umm” on the video you posted is not deep. It isn’t lower than the rest of the speech. You can hear him talk just slightly higher, after the first “umm” when he says “uhh, uhh…can you hear me?”, but that was obviously because he was trying to raise his voice a little because he wasn’t sure whether or not he was being heard.

When he starts talking and says “thank you very much N’Sync” his voice sounds identical to the way it does at the start of the video.

 

[DuranDuran]

This is a deep voice, none of those videos above are.

 

[kreen]

But Canadian producer Stuart Brawley who worked as a sound engineer on the 'Invincible' album stated that Michael Jackson sings with his real, deep voice in that song.

I don't believe it. Maybe he indeed sang the song in his lower register, like he did other songs in his discography, but an effect was still added on top of that. Maybe those collaborators don't want to get onto the Estate's black list by saying something "negative" that might result in some unwanted headlines ("Producer admits Michael Jackson faked his vocals on last album"). Maybe they misremember. Maybe, like many storytellers, they'd rather go with the impressive but false-ish story than the true but boring one.

 

[dethorro]

This is a deep voice, none of those videos above are.

Indeed. That’s my point, Michael’s voice was never naturally deep. He could certainly reach low notes, but his strong point was his high register.

 

[zinniabooklover]

This is a deep voice, none of those videos above are.

Yay! Melvin Franklin.

 

[mj_frenzy]

American film director Spike Lee almost had a heart attack when he heard at one point Michael Jackson's real, deep voice.

It was during the shooting of the 'They Don't Care About Us' music video (prison version).

The incident took place while Spike Lee was walking to the Craft Service Table.

The singer momentarily talked to him with his real, deep voice that shocked the director.

Spike Lee thought that it was a ventriloquist.

American actress Liza Minnelli was equally shocked when she heard Michael Jackson's real, deep voice at one point, too (through telephone).

 

[Pentum]

I think some of you are misunderstanding what we mean by "MJ actually has a deep speaking voice". Meaning, he doesn't really have that high pitched voice, but rather a "Normal" manly voice. We're not saying he has a Barry White deep voice at all.

Again, he puts on this high pitched voice, talking almost using head voice. It's almost like when we try to imitate MJ's "high pitched talking voice", it's my impression that MJ is actually doing this, on purpose, as well as all the other reasons I mentioned earlier.

Watch the video I posted above. Watch what mj_frenzy posted, watch This Is It conference - people back then even doubted that was really MJ due to the deep voice (among other reasons).

We will never know for sure, but I will definitely stand by my opinion. M had a pretty much normal manly voice, and the high pitched voice is something he put on, due to various reasons discussed and mentioned.

 

[SilkySnare]

I like Invincible but it's the only album of Michael's I don't love. I feel jealously for those who love it, I wish I could appreciate more, that's the seed of my frustration

That is very honest, thanks.
I love Invincible and would give anything to help others feel that way.

I can't really give you any smart advice, but to sit down and listen to it. We are so used to Michael's classic songs, they are part of human civilization. But with Invincible, we have to actually put in some work to start appreciating it.
Like many, I also skipped over Invincible, saw nothing memorable (I couldn't even memorize song titles for the longest time) and went back to his other stuff.
But I kept listening to it and all of a sudden there was something like a switch that turned on. The album suddenly started showing all of its layers and complexities. It's so rich with sounds and lyrics that it objectively overshadows all other albums in those regards. It just feels so modern and unique and there is no other sound experience like it.

But while I understand why people don't click with songs right off the bat, I never understood arguments such as "he didn't write it" or "they manipulated his voice". I can respect people's personal tastes and Michael's albums are so diverse that it's only natural fans will disagree on some stuff. However, saying that Invincible is bad because Michael didn't write all of the songs and that electronic filters were used on vocals, that makes no damn sense. On each album there are songs that Michael wrote, that Michael co-wrote or that Michael didn't write. I mean, Quincy and his team basically rewrote lots of lyrics from Thriller and Bad, to make them more coherent. Anyone who dislikes Invincible for this reason should also prefer Starlight over Thriller. And should absolutely hate Man in the Mirror.
So I cannot, in any shape or form, respect the opinion that Invincible is bad because Michael didn't write it. He did write some songs on it himself, like he did on other albums. Can we please PLEASE stop with this stupid argument?
It's a similar thing with vocals manipulation. All sounds are digitally processed, unless you are sitting in a concert hall and listening to live music. And even then, the sounds are artificially amplified through speakers. When you listen to Invincible and try to isolate only the vocals in your head, you start to hear something very unique. His voice is different, it's special. He sounds like he is chewing on a piece of bread, for the lack of better analogy. No other singer comes even close, no matter how much autotune or filters they use and it's an evolution of his screaming voice that got perfected on Bad. The way he can instantly switch between screaming his lungs out and humming a gentle lullaby, it's out of this world. A great example of this would be Break of Dawn. Pure magic.

So the two main arguments against Invincible are really stupid and I think people embarrass themselves with them. If you really gave Invincible a chance (that means listening to the entire album at least 20 times) and still find no value in it, then I can respect that. It's personal taste, it's fine.
But maybe we should stop propagating this notion that Invincible is objectively bad and act like there should be reasons for that. The only reason is our personal taste in music and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[lubyss]

GOSH! I am really impressed how many ppl coplaining that 2000 Watts was lowered... Even if it was, you still like The Way You Make Me Feel, where Michaels voice was pitched up and he sounds like a chipmank... such a hypocrytes...

 

[mj_frenzy]

That is very honest, thanks.
I love Invincible and would give anything to help others feel that way.

I can't really give you any smart advice, but to sit down and listen to it. We are so used to Michael's classic songs, they are part of human civilization. But with Invincible, we have to actually put in some work to start appreciating it.
Like many, I also skipped over Invincible, saw nothing memorable (I couldn't even memorize song titles for the longest time) and went back to his other stuff.
But I kept listening to it and all of a sudden there was something like a switch that turned on. The album suddenly started showing all of its layers and complexities. It's so rich with sounds and lyrics that it objectively overshadows all other albums in those regards. It just feels so modern and unique and there is no other sound experience like it.

But while I understand why people don't click with songs right off the bat, I never understood arguments such as "he didn't write it" or "they manipulated his voice". I can respect people's personal tastes and Michael's albums are so diverse that it's only natural fans will disagree on some stuff. However, saying that Invincible is bad because Michael didn't write all of the songs and that electronic filters were used on vocals, that makes no damn sense. On each album there are songs that Michael wrote, that Michael co-wrote or that Michael didn't write. I mean, Quincy and his team basically rewrote lots of lyrics from Thriller and Bad, to make them more coherent. Anyone who dislikes Invincible for this reason should also prefer Starlight over Thriller. And should absolutely hate Man in the Mirror.
So I cannot, in any shape or form, respect the opinion that Invincible is bad because Michael didn't write it. He did write some songs on it himself, like he did on other albums. Can we please PLEASE stop with this stupid argument?
It's a similar thing with vocals manipulation. All sounds are digitally processed, unless you are sitting in a concert hall and listening to live music. And even then, the sounds are artificially amplified through speakers. When you listen to Invincible and try to isolate only the vocals in your head, you start to hear something very unique. His voice is different, it's special. He sounds like he is chewing on a piece of bread, for the lack of better analogy. No other singer comes even close, no matter how much autotune or filters they use and it's an evolution of his screaming voice that got perfected on Bad. The way he can instantly switch between screaming his lungs out and humming a gentle lullaby, it's out of this world. A great example of this would be Break of Dawn. Pure magic.

So the two main arguments against Invincible are really stupid and I think people embarrass themselves with them. If you really gave Invincible a chance (that means listening to the entire album at least 20 times) and still find no value in it, then I can respect that. It's personal taste, it's fine.
But maybe we should stop propagating this notion that Invincible is objectively bad and act like there should be reasons for that. The only reason is our personal taste in music and there is nothing wrong with that.

He only wrote two songs on that album, ('Speechless' and the 'The Lost Children'), while the co-writing credits that he got on the other songs are rather exaggerated.

For instance, it is misleading that Michael Jackson co-wrote 'Whatever Happens', if one listens to the original demo that was presented to him.

So, that album sounds more like a cover album, and that is also why it attracted widespread negative criticism, even by many of his die-hard fans.

Also, the album was understandably criticised for Michael Jackson's vocals.

His computerized, digitally manipulated voice in certain songs did not suit him because he was rather old (in his 40s at that time) for such things.

Moreover, he sounds like he has a sore throat on songs like 'Heartbreaker', 'Invincible', 'Heaven Can Wait', and so on.

The overall production also of the album sounds derivative and unnatural.

Considering that they had a big budget at their disposal to spend, it is odd that they did not use real instruments on certain songs, which of course are more expensive to buy than electronic instruments, but they give a more natural and better sound.

Many fans also remarked that the 'Invincible' album needed Quincy Jones' crucial quality control.

 

[SilkySnare]

You literally brought up the same two main "arguments" for Invincible being bad that I've spent all that time deconstructing.

 

[mj_frenzy]

You literally brought up the same two main "arguments" for Invincible being bad that I've spent all that time deconstructing.

My previous post explains why these two main arguments for the 'Invincible' album being bad are not really stupid arguments so people do not embarrass themselves with them.

 

[DuranDuran]

So, that album sounds more like a cover album, and that is also why it attracted widespread negative criticism, even by many of his die-hard fans.

The majority of people don't know or care who wrote songs. Like they used to say on American Bandstand "It has a good beat and I can dance to it". Hip hop fans do not usually appreciate if they find out a rapper used ghostwriters though. Most singers/bands in the entire history of the recording business did not write their own songs. Only a small percentage self-wrote. It was Rolling Stone magazine that made the idea of self-writing important because it first came out post Beatles/Bob Dylan in the late 1960s. RS first promoted the idea of self-writing to be superior to those who didn't. So that's a boomer idea. Then other rock magazines started to do the same. That's why they don't rate R&B or dance music as highly as rock music, because R&B is generally a songwriter and/or producer genre (ig Norman Whitfield, HDH, Gamble & Huff, Mizell Brothers, The Corporation, Booker T & The MGs, Jam & Lewis, Curtis Mayfield, LA & Babyface, etc). Nobody cared if pre-British Invasion performers like Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee wrote songs or not. They didn't. A lot of the popular songs from their era were written by non-performing songwriters. Some got recorded dozens & even hundreds of times and later became known as "standards" or "Great American Songbook".

Elvis Presley never wrote any songs, yet he's the King Of Rock N Roll and is generally praised by rock magazines. The only reason that Elvis got writing credits is because Colonel Parker would usually not let Elvis record a song if the songwriter did not sign over 50% of the publishing to him. There's songs that Elvis wanted to do but Parker refused, and the same with movies. Elvis wanted to be taken seriously as an actor, but Parker did not care about that and only wanted movies that could make a lot of money.

Led Zeppelin is still widely praised and it is known that some of their songs are straight copies of old blues songs, but claimed that the band wrote them and did not credit the original writers. I still hear Milli Vanilli on the radio and their videos have many millions of views. It's common for modern hit songs to have up to 20 writers on them and they win Grammys. Also, anybody can get a writing credit if they get registered at the copyright office. Ray Parker Jr wrote the disco song You Make Me Feel Like Dancing by Leo Sayer. But the producer of the track took the writing credit and Ray was not credited at all. Ray did not get any royalties. Many Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately, they just made a deal to credit each other. In the mid-1970s James Brown gave the credit to his then elementary school aged daughters instead of himself to get around the taxman. Ghostwriters generally just get a flat fee for each song and are not credited because they are considered "work for hire".

 

[kreen]

The majority of people don't know or care who wrote songs. Like they used to say on American Bandstand "It has a good beat and I can dance to it". Hip hop fans do not usually appreciate if they find out a rapper used ghostwriters though. Most singers/bands in the entire history of the recording business did not write their own songs. Only a small percentage self-wrote. It was Rolling Stone magazine that made the idea of self-writing important because it first came out post Beatles/Bob Dylan in the late 1960s. RS first promoted the idea of self-writing to be superior to those who didn't. So that's a boomer idea. Then other rock magazines started to do the same. That's why they don't rate R&B or dance music as highly as rock music, because R&B is generally a songwriter and/or producer genre (ig Norman Whitfield, HDH, Gamble & Huff, Mizell Brothers, The Corporation, Booker T & The MGs, Jam & Lewis, Curtis Mayfield, LA & Babyface, etc). Nobody cared if pre-British Invasion performers like Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee wrote songs or not. They didn't. A lot of the popular songs from their era were written by non-performing songwriters. Some got recorded dozens & even hundreds of times and later became known as "standards" or "Great American Songbook".

Elvis Presley never wrote any songs, yet he's the King Of Rock N Roll and is generally praised by rock magazines. The only reason that Elvis got writing credits is because Colonel Parker would usually not let Elvis record a song if the songwriter did not sign over 50% of the publishing to him. There's songs that Elvis wanted to do but Parker refused, and the same with movies. Elvis wanted to be taken seriously as an actor, but Parker did not care about that and only wanted movies that could make a lot of money.

Led Zeppelin is still widely praised and it is known that some of their songs are straight copies of old blues songs, but claimed that the band wrote them and did not credit the original writers. I still hear Milli Vanilli on the radio and their videos have many millions of views. It's common for modern hit songs to have up to 20 writers on them and they win Grammys. Also, anybody can get a writing credit if they get registered at the copyright office. Ray Parker Jr wrote the disco song You Make Me Feel Like Dancing by Leo Sayer. But the producer of the track took the writing credit and Ray was not credited at all. Ray did not get any royalties. Many Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately, they just made a deal to credit each other. In the mid-1970s James Brown gave the credit to his then elementary school aged daughters instead of himself to get around the taxman. Ghostwriters generally just get a flat fee for each song and are not credited because they are considered "work for hire".

Yeah, except you have to consider two things:

It's true pre-rock era singers didn't write their own songs, and are still considered worthy artists, but they usually were "voice" singers, meaning people who had particularly strong voices, and could sing demanding material and reach difficult notes. In the post-rock era, it became possible for passable singers with much less perfect and powerful voices and phrasing to make it as singers. Think Frank Sinatra versus Paul McCartney.

Also, MJ fans can't have it both ways. We can't on the one hand praise MJ for being a songwriter, for writing personal songs, for coming up with his own style and hooks as a writer, and then turn around and say nothing of value is lost when he chooses to rely instead of factory-line songwriters. If one appreciates Bad or HIStory because so much of the material comes straight from MJ's pen and mind, one is justified in dlsliking Invincible because it's "just" a singer's album, instead of a singer-songwriter's record.

In my case, it's not so much that MJ didn't write the material -- although I'm disappointed about that too. It's that he didn't take the material and turn it into MJ songs by using his idiosyncratic style on it. He did to it on some of the outtakes, though, like I've Had Enough. That is an example of a song he didn't write but absolutely sang as a MJ song.

 

[DuranDuran]

Yeah, except you have to consider two things:

It's true pre-rock era singers didn't write their own songs, and are still considered worthy artists, but they usually were "voice" singers, meaning people who had particularly strong voices, and could sing demanding material and reach difficult notes. In the post-rock era, it became possible for passable singers with much less perfect and powerful voices and phrasing to make it as singers. Think Frank Sinatra versus Paul McCartney.

This is why Rolling Stone always has Bob Dylan as one of the best singers of all time, often in the Top 10. Johnny Mathis & Teddy Pendergrass, who didn't write, or rarely did, are nowhere to be found. Neither are gospel singers, except maybe Mahalia Jackson.

 

[mj_frenzy]

The majority of people don't know or care who wrote songs. Like they used to say on American Bandstand "It has a good beat and I can dance to it". Hip hop fans do not usually appreciate if they find out a rapper used ghostwriters though. Most singers/bands in the entire history of the recording business did not write their own songs. Only a small percentage self-wrote. It was Rolling Stone magazine that made the idea of self-writing important because it first came out post Beatles/Bob Dylan in the late 1960s. RS first promoted the idea of self-writing to be superior to those who didn't. So that's a boomer idea. Then other rock magazines started to do the same. That's why they don't rate R&B or dance music as highly as rock music, because R&B is generally a songwriter and/or producer genre (ig Norman Whitfield, HDH, Gamble & Huff, Mizell Brothers, The Corporation, Booker T & The MGs, Jam & Lewis, Curtis Mayfield, LA & Babyface, etc). Nobody cared if pre-British Invasion performers like Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee wrote songs or not. They didn't. A lot of the popular songs from their era were written by non-performing songwriters. Some got recorded dozens & even hundreds of times and later became known as "standards" or "Great American Songbook".

Elvis Presley never wrote any songs, yet he's the King Of Rock N Roll and is generally praised by rock magazines. The only reason that Elvis got writing credits is because Colonel Parker would usually not let Elvis record a song if the songwriter did not sign over 50% of the publishing to him. There's songs that Elvis wanted to do but Parker refused, and the same with movies. Elvis wanted to be taken seriously as an actor, but Parker did not care about that and only wanted movies that could make a lot of money.

Led Zeppelin is still widely praised and it is known that some of their songs are straight copies of old blues songs, but claimed that the band wrote them and did not credit the original writers. I still hear Milli Vanilli on the radio and their videos have many millions of views. It's common for modern hit songs to have up to 20 writers on them and they win Grammys. Also, anybody can get a writing credit if they get registered at the copyright office. Ray Parker Jr wrote the disco song You Make Me Feel Like Dancing by Leo Sayer. But the producer of the track took the writing credit and Ray was not credited at all. Ray did not get any royalties. Many Lennon/McCartney songs were written separately, they just made a deal to credit each other. In the mid-1970s James Brown gave the credit to his then elementary school aged daughters instead of himself to get around the taxman. Ghostwriters generally just get a flat fee for each song and are not credited because they are considered "work for hire".

In Michael Jackson fans' case, it seems that it matters who wrote the songs because songs that Michael Jackson did not write tend to have a feel of unoriginality for these fans.

For example, they appear to be dismissive of songs mainly because he did not write them ('Thriller', 'You Are Not Alone', 'P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)', 'I Can't Help It', 'Baby Be Mine', 'Cry', 'It's The Falling In Love', etc).

They also appear to be dismissive of his four, pre-adult studio solo albums, mainly for the same reason.

Rock music is rightfully considered to be superior to RnB and dance music because rock music requires more talent and skills to create, to record, but also to perform it live.

Also, RnB and dance music have a rather generic, repetitive and formulaic sound, while this does not happen with rock music which has a more elaborate sound and in most cases also more meaningful and introspective self-written lyrics.

 

[threatened2020]

He only wrote two songs on that album, ('Speechless' and the 'The Lost Children'), while the co-writing credits that he got on the other songs are rather exaggerated.

For instance, it is misleading that Michael Jackson co-wrote 'Whatever Happens', if one listens to the original demo that was presented to him.

So, that album sounds more like a cover album, and that is also why it attracted widespread negative criticism, even by many of his die-hard fans.

Also, the album was understandably criticised for Michael Jackson's vocals.

His computerized, digitally manipulated voice in certain songs did not suit him because he was rather old (in his 40s at that time) for such things.

Moreover, he sounds like he has a sore throat on songs like 'Heartbreaker', 'Invincible', 'Heaven Can Wait', and so on.

The overall production also of the album sounds derivative and unnatural.

Considering that they had a big budget at their disposal to spend, it is odd that they did not use real instruments on certain songs, which of course are more expensive to buy than electronic instruments, but they give a more natural and better sound.

Many fans also remarked that the 'Invincible' album needed Quincy Jones' crucial quality control.

Being in his 40s doesn't mean that computer generated voice effects didn't work. That's just ageism. Look at Cher, in 1998 she was mid 50s and came out with Believe!

 

[zinniabooklover]

Being in his 40s doesn't mean that computer generated voice effects didn't work. That's just ageism. Look at Cher, in 1998 she was mid 50s and came out with Believe!

This.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Being in his 40s doesn't mean that computer generated voice effects didn't work. That's just ageism. Look at Cher, in 1998 she was mid 50s and came out with Believe!

Some other things also on this album were not really suitable for his age, and he was understandably criticized for doing them.

For example, he also used some modern, slang words and phrases in an effort to connect better with the younger generation.

Like, the "shorty" word, as a reference to an attractive woman (in '2000 Watts').

Or, the "cool" word in the 'Invincible' song.

Or even, the "she is banging!" phrase in 'You Rock My World' (spoken intro).

All these things (including his computerised voice on certain songs) proved to be desperate and unsuccessful efforts on his part, and many people remarked that on this album Michael Jackson simply did what he was told to do by his producers.

 

[PurpleThriller]

Sony Music's top executives never believed in the potential of the second disc.

That's because such people don't know music.
For that matter, Warner Brothers didn't see potential in Prince's 1985 album ''Around The World In A Day " either,and that's because such close minded,non-musical,greedy and money-hungry bussinessmen don't have an actual working musical ear.
But that's not the artist's fault,be it Michael Jackson or Prince or anyone.
(I'm sorry if i'm sounding harsh,but i am so against record labels)