Dangerous 25: what would you like to see happen? [UNCONFIRMED]

Doggone

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
1,203
Points
38
I think it won't happen. There's a thread in the news section saying that they are working on a new posthumous album project. So I really doubt that they are going to do both Dangerous 25 and a new posthumous album.
 

mjnet

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
43
Points
6
If there is Dangerous 25 .I really want to have the Dangerous concert Blu-Ray.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
Ooooh, yeah! There will be a "D25"! Just you wait and see! It's gonna be goooood too! Guess what it's contents could and should be!
 

Tony R

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,604
Points
0
Location
UK
Ooooh, yeah! There will be a "D25"! Just you wait and see! It's gonna be goooood too! Guess what it's contents could and should be!

Just for clarity, how do you know this?
 

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
4,888
Points
113
Ooooh, yeah! There will be a "D25"! Just you wait and see! It's gonna be goooood too! Guess what it's contents could and should be!

Speculation is fine, but you're speaking here as if Dangerous25 is a confirmed, certified release, and you're likely going to mislead someone who isn't aware of the circumstances around it.

Dangerous25 still hasn't been hinted at, suggested, or confirmed by anyone. So, until we know otherwise, it isn't happening.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
Why wouldn't there be one?! The other anniversary releases were also hits! THOUGH you are correct that does not necessarily justify a new anniversary release but it sure isn't because they weren't successful in the past! It's been talked about for years now! It's the obvious next choice! Just imagine the possibilities!

As it is it was already said that there would be a thirty-fifth anniversary release for "Thriller" in 2017!!! That's probably in relation some how to whatever 3D version being released, eh? (Whatever happened to the newly filmed version that was done by Kenny Ortega?! Wasn't that already shown and premiered at some film festival in Europe about a year ago at this point, eh?) That I would say highly increases the likely hood of "Dangerous 25" being released THIS YEAR!!!

How do you all think that the packaging for "Dangerous 25" should be? Should it be like the limited edition c.d. one that came out when it was first released with the 3-D image of the artwork on the cover?! I am SOOOO excited about this! Especially with whatever deluxe content it could have! Ow!
 
Last edited:

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
4,888
Points
113
Why wouldn't there be one?! The other anniversary releases were also hits! THOUGH you are correct that does not necessarily justify a new anniversary release but it sure isn't because they weren't successful in the past! It's been talked about for years now! It's the obvious next choice! Just imagine the possibilities!

As it is it was already said that there would be a thirty-fifth anniversary release for "Thriller" in 2017!!! That's probably in relation some how to whatever 3D version being released, eh? (Whatever happened to the newly filmed version that was done by Kenny Ortega?! Wasn't that already shown and premiered at some film festival in Europe about a year ago at this point, eh?) That I would say highly increases the likely hood of "Dangerous 25" being released THIS YEAR!!!

Bad25 was a commercial disappointment by all measures.

You're speaking of Dangerous25 as a guarantee, despite there being absolutely no evidence that it is due to be released.

There was no discussion for a 35th anniversary Thriller project. Spike Lee spoke about wanting to make a Thriller documentary, which doesn't not equate to him actually putting one in production, nor a coinciding anniversary reissue being on the horizon.

The version of Thriller directed by Kenny Ortega was already shown in the This Is It film - a two-minute vignette that was meant to precede the performance of the song during the tour.

There is no proof that Dangerous25 is coming out this year. None. If you want to hold out hope, that's fine. But I highly encourage you to stop speaking as if it is a guarantee, because there have already been confusion among new fans.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
Wow. "Bad 25" was not a "commercial disappointment by all measures". (!)



Commercial performance


The album opened in the United Kingdom at number six with sales of 11,475 copies,[SUP][18][/SUP] but for the second week, it fell to number thirty-eight with a severe buffeting of 3,365 copies sales.[SUP][19][/SUP] In Japan, 190,753 CD copies of this album had been sold during the first week of its release as number ten on Oricon album chart,[SUP][20][/SUP] the sales fell to 5,307 copies as number twenty-four for the second week.[SUP][21][/SUP] In the United States, as Billboard's rule, 2 CD standard version of Bad 25 is regarded as the same album of Bad, and re-entered Billboard 200 at #23, while the deluxe edition which is regarded as a new album release debuted at #46, The album sold a combined total of about 47,000 copies in the first week in the US, spending 3 consecutive weeks atop Top Pop Catalog Albums chart, although, the album sales were being beaten by Nicki Minaj's Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded - The Re-Up which sold no more than 33,000 copies in its first week.[SUP][22][/SUP] Bad 25 sold more than 1 million albums in more than 25 countries within its first week of release. Spike Lee's Bad 25 documentary aired on ABC Thanksgiving (November 22) in the United States in a 60-minute edited version while the full 123 minute version was broadcast in the UK and Ireland on BBC2 on December 1. The documentary received widespread acclaim and currently holds a 90% rating on review site Rotten Tomatoes.[SUP][23][/SUP] The standalone version of Jackson's Live at Wembley July 16, 1988 DVD debuted at the top of DVD sales charts of several countries including the United States, Italy, France, Sweden, Austria and Norway. It debuted at number 2 in Ireland, the UK, Spain, Switzerland and Australia. Parts of the Wembley show were seen through the Bad 25 special.[SUP][24]


[/SUP]
 

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
4,888
Points
113
^^ Wikipedia is not a friend when it comes to looking for facts.

The claim that Bad25 sold a million within one week is also almost certainly false considering that there is no source online that can corroborate it (not to mention that it is one of the only sentences in that entire paragraph that has no citation). All certified sales numbers show that Bad25 likely sold under 500k-600k copies worldwide.

Falling from #6 to #38 in the United Kingdom within a week can also be considered a massive disappointment.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
Hey, it's been made pretty clear that comparing number of M.J.'s sales from yesteryear is not relevant on the basis of and that no one moves large numbers anymore anyway. I think most artists would kill to have numbers like "Bad 25" for any release mere less some old from a quarter of century ago. Surely there is someone in this community or website that can at some point find out from either Epic and or The Estate worldwide sales for "Bad 25".
 

HIStoric

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
3,456
Points
48
There's a reason why the first few sentences of that Wikipedia paragraph are cited, but the claim of 1 million copies isn't. Hint: it's not true.

I didn't expect Bad 25 to be selling millions, but it definitely didn't help having such a poorly timed and blotched marketing campaign.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
You do know that Michael Jackson's record company have been actively sabotaging him for over twenty years now, right?
 

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
4,888
Points
113
^^ What??

Michael was always very sore with Sony largely due to the Tommy Mottolla confrontations, despite the fact that by 2003, Mottolla had stepped down from the company, meaning the sole person Michael truly had an issue with was no longer involved...

Sony has not been sabotaging anyone or anything in some time. The Invincible conundrum was not entirely their fault - Michael had a hand in it as well - but since then they have done absolutely nothing that could even be misconstrued as having malicious intentions.

This whole "against Sony" mind set doesn't register with me. It didn't when Michael was alive and it doesn't now.

Besides, "over 20 years" means that, at the latest, Sony would have begun sabotaging Michael's projects since 1996 and would have been doing so up to recently, which simply is not even remotely true.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
Wow. It is entirely true. What's your beef? Sony have been and actively sabotaging Michael for twenty two years to be exact. Perhaps longer. Sony were going to ditch Michael because he said that he was going to sign with someone else or go independent when he was done with his contract. On top of that some other Asian company said that they would sign and take him so Sony backed out of not working with him any more instead so as to not loose the money making opportunities he was still capable of which were phenomenal and astronomical to the point of being pioneering in his field of work as well as not just the music industry but the entire entertainment industry.

Michael did not want to do a greatest hits in 1995 but was convinced otherwise. He even apologized to the fans in 1997 for making them have to purchase the same songs over again. (On a side note concerning their lack of interest Sony said a title track to it did not matter but Michael insisted which was brilliant and became one of his best recordings, that being the "HIStory".) Michael his own remixes to be released on "Blood On The Dance Floor - HIStory In The Mix" but Sony instead forced him to use remixes that they came up with instead.

"HIStory: Past, Present, And Future - BOOK I" was not promoted to the extent that it could and or should have been. Sony have never acknowledged the actual worldwide sales of all his releases both total and individually. They dictated to the press what to report and what not. The story was that "he did not sell like he use to", "the projects were failures", "the l.p.s did not sell as well as they had hoped", "other recording artists were doing better", and so forth. Hence was part of the practice of Tommy Mottella that he would destroy an artist's reputation significantly enough to devalue them so that they could not sign a better contract with someone else. So yes it was with the entire company of Sony and not just Tommy Mottella. Mottella was an employee and he was actively destroying their highest paid employee. They could have stopped that a long time ago. You do not let another employee destroy other people in your business unless you want it to happen. Mottella did this to George Michael, his ex-wife Mariah Carey, and his "friend" Michael Jackson. The excuse that Tommy "stepped down" was and is a lie and it is SO sad to hear and see fans such as yourself (if that is even true) believe it hook line and sink.

I won't even get into how they sabotaged "Invincible" doing no "short promotional films" (a.k.a.: "music videos") or a trailer like "Dangerous" and "HIStory: Past, Present, And Future - BOOK I" had. Mere having so few singles. Mere less it selling eight million copies in the first few months after debuting at number one in the U.S. and worldwide in 11 other countries. The idea that people on some level did not know about it because of 9/11 happening is just false as can be THOUGH the general public did not because of the lack of promotion. There was also the lie that they spent thirty million dollars promoting it. That was just false through and through. There is virtually no artwork or photos in it in terms of what they could have done.

It was the standard in the industry that an artist does not promote a project on their own if the record company either does not or holds back from doing so themselves. Otherwise it was understood that the artist would have been agreeing with the actions (or lack there of) of not promoting the project so therefore that was the only reason Michael "had a hand in it's outcome" concerning all of that and promotion that could have been done more so by him. In this case according to his contract he was obligated to do certain promotion of which he did and that was why nothing more happened by him. According to both Janet and Rodney Jerkins Michael found out right before "Invincible" was released what was not going to happen so he pulled off the versions of songs he was going to have on it.

There is no misconstruing of information. Who are you and who do you work for? You seem highly invested and motivated to defend Sony.
Why does this not "register" with you?
 
Last edited:

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,977
Points
113
Anyone that says HIStory was under-promoted wasn't around for the era. IDK about the US but the HIStory statue was EVERYWHERE in the UK. It even sailed down the Thames!!
 

Deleted member 9375

Guest
^^Exactly! Money was also spent on the teaser film.

As for Invincible, the album cost 30 million to produce and there was a further 6 to 8 million spent on remastering and repackaging the Special Editions of OTW, Thriller, Bad & Dangerous. I don't know if they were part of the promotional campaign but that's the best part of 40 million dollors before anything else happened. I mean that's crazy money, and at a time when there was a decline in the record industry with the likes of napster and budgets being cut across the board for every artist and groups.
 

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
4,888
Points
113
There is no misconstruing of information. Who are you and who do you work for? You seem highly invested and motivated to defend Sony. Why does this not "register" with you?

I'm sure by now I've already acquired the reputation as the "fighter" of the forum in that I'm usually in some sort of petty argument. Not very happy with myself on that front, but I have to acknowledge that many of the things you commented in your lengthy post simply are inaccurate. Take some time to look it up from whatever verified source you find appropriate (Vogel, Smallcombe, Cadman, etc).

  • Insisting that Michael was so opposed to greatest hits collections directly contradicts the fact that he had spoken to several people about a supposed History: Book II that would feature greatest hits that didn't make the first package such as "Human Nature" and "Dirty Diana". Not to mention the Number Ones album, which offered a single new song in exchange for purchasing 16 songs that had already been out for ages. And lest we forget about the canceled Decade compilation... or the Thriller25 special edition package... or the 2001 reissues...
  • Michael almost certainly exaggerated his feelings towards remixes, considering the fact that they are present as B-sides on literally every single he released from 1991 onward. He also apparently personally contacted Wyclef Jean and told him how much he loved his remix of "2 Bad" for Blood on the Dance Floor.
  • History was an absolutely massive success. Have you forgotten the massive 30-foot statues that were located in various locations around the globe? Or the six short films produced? Or the seven singles that saw varying success around the world? Or the fact that History is currently the highest-selling double-disc project of all time with 18 million copies worldwide?
  • Statements from the press regarding album sales have nothing to do with Sony. The media called Bad a failure when it failed to outsell Thriller; they did the same with Dangerous when it failed to outsell Bad. It's a cycle that had been frequenting since the 1980s. Also keep in mind that the media's attitude towards Michael had soured immensely after the Chandler situation, so they were ready and willing to cut him down at any turn.
  • No short promotional films? Have you never seen "You Rock My World" or "Cry"?
  • By the time Invincible was released, Sony was already aware that Michael would be leaving the label by the time the promotional period ended. No record company on the face of the planet would put full support behind an artist that, within one year's time, would be actively seeking and potentially making millions for a rival label.
  • Invincible sold three million copies by year's end, not eight.
  • Michael's refusal to do much of anything to help Invincible is not "industry standard"; it gives off the impression that the artist doesn't care enough about the album to do anything to help it. He did TWO public performances in September 2001 and sang a single song from the album. He did no tour. (Understandably, but nonetheless.) He did no award show performances. He did a single music video. He did very few interviews. And then he turned to the very company who paid for his studio fees, the two short films put into production, and worldwide distribution for the album, and said, "You didn't do anything"? Granted, Sony is not entirely innocent here, but to put all the blame on them simply makes no sense.

Who am I? I'm someone who loves Michael Jackson enough to be upfront when I believe that he did something wrong. I'm not going to hate on Sony just because Michael tells me to; I'm going to look at whatever facts are available, learn what actually happened, and then determine who's side I should be on.
 

HIStoric

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
3,456
Points
48
As for Invincible, the album cost 30 million to produce and there was a further 6 to 8 million spent on remastering and repackaging the Special Editions of OTW, Thriller, Bad & Dangerous. I don't know if they were part of the promotional campaign but that's the best part of 40 million dollors before anything else happened. I mean that's crazy money, and at a time when there was a decline in the record industry with the likes of napster and budgets being cut across the board for every artist and groups.

Exactly, but even then, that's an understatement. Adjusted for inflation, Invincible's production costs alone now equate to over 40 million dollars. In the 15 years since release, no album has ever come close to reaching that production cost.

I blame both Sony and Michael for the failure of Invincible in regards to it's marketing and singles, but damn I can honestly see why Sony weren't too keen on spending even more to promote it.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 9375

Guest
Exactly, but even then, that's an understatement. Adjusted for inflation, Invincible's production costs alone now equate to over 40 million dollars. In the 15 years since release, no album has ever come close to reaching that production cost.

I blame both Sony and Michael for the failure of Invincible in regards to it's marketing and singles, but damn I can honestly see why Sony weren't too keen on spending even more to promote it.
I agree. What I actually didn't appreciate about the making of Invincible was the way money was just squandered and wasted on booking the best in hotel accommodation and the rooms not being used, the best of food just laying around and not being eaten and musicians and producers being paid 2000 dollars a day just to hang around. I mean how long was Rodney Jerkins on that full time salary? I mean 30 million dollars to essentially just f##k around in multiple studios booked out around the cloak and back and forth between New York and LA was crazy. I can't agree with throwing money around like that. And the disjointed mess those sessions were translate onto the album. The sequencing is awful with all those ballades in the middle and atleast 4 tracks should never have made it on there, not to mention the horrible loud mix. Michael definitely has to take his share of the blame. If it had been the biggest seller in the world he would have certainly been taking the credit.

And AlwaysThere, I hear you man. Great points.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
I agree. What I actually didn't appreciate about the making of Invincible was the way money was just squandered and wasted on booking the best in hotel accommodation and the rooms not being used, the best of food just laying around and not being eaten and musicians and producers being paid 2000 dollars a day just to hang around. I mean how long was Rodney Jerkins on that full time salary? I mean 30 million dollars to essentially just f##k around in multiple studios booked out around the cloak and back and forth between New York and LA was crazy.

And AlwaysThere, I hear you man. Great points.
Yeah, I agree with you aazzaabb-the squandering and waste of the studio time, producers, etc. is something I don't understand because it's a total 180 of the way Michael worked before. You can talk to anyone-Berry, Quincy, Bruce and one of the things they really praise him for (besides his talent-that's a given) is for utilizing studio time economically. Even back in the day, studio time was SO expensive-and they all admired how he would memorize his lyrics and be 100% ready to use every second of studio time wisely-he would work on his demos so that they would be practically ready to be released before hitting the actual studio. They marveled that he was the only artist that could lay down all the background harmonies AND the lead vocals in a single day.
So this whole Invincible thing struck me as odd (not just the boycott part). Either he was already having some probs with Sony execs or his heart just wasn't in it then-It's really not like him at all, in my mind.

And yes, Always There, very good points.
 

HIStoric

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
3,456
Points
48
So this whole Invincible thing struck me as odd (not just the boycott part). Either he was already having some probs with Sony execs or his heart just wasn't in it then-It's really not like him at all, in my mind.

That's what I was thinking too, it wasn't like him at all. Given he wasn't a big fan of Sony at the time, perhaps he was just determined to waste as much of their money as possible? If that was his intention, it definitely came back to bite him.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
That's what I was thinking too, it wasn't like him at all. Given he wasn't a big fan of Sony at the time, perhaps he was just determined to waste as much of their money as possible? If that was his intention, it definitely came back to bite him.
That's true, and even though it's a possibility, I have a hard time believing that was the reason. Michael grew up in show business and was practically born to be always professional-he always took the high ground in all of his dealings-so it's a little hard to fathom.
I'm more inclined to think it had something to do with his health, or his new family, than just sticking it to Sony. I'm not opposed to him being angry with them, or having a big ego and probably having fights with execs, etc., but that would be a "childish" thing, and I can't see Michael being childish-ever-not even when he was a child.

(probably why I thought that whole $ony sucks boycott later went too far).
 

HIStoric

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
3,456
Points
48
That's true, and even though it's a possibility, I have a hard time believing that was the reason. Michael grew up in show business and was practically born to be always professional-he always took the high ground in all of his dealings-so it's a little hard to fathom.
I'm more inclined to think it had something to do with his health, or his new family, than just sticking it to Sony. I'm not opposed to him being angry with them, or having a big ego and probably having fights with execs, etc., but that would be a "childish" thing, and I can't see Michael being childish-ever-not even when he was a child.

(probably why I thought that whole $ony sucks boycott later went too far).

I just find it very odd, that's all. It seems his work practises suddenly took a complete 180 when it came to the Invincible sessions.
 

innuendo141

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
3,424
Points
63
Who am I? I'm someone who loves Michael Jackson enough to be upfront when I believe that he did something wrong. I'm not going to hate on Sony just because Michael tells me to; I'm going to look at whatever facts are available, learn what actually happened, and then determine who's side I should be on.

Not quoting the whole post, but good to see some sense. I lolled at Alex's comment that HIStory wasnt promoted.
 

AlexRox

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
295
Points
0
Lol. 1) When did Michael talk about a second "HIStory"? If he did so obviously it is not a far stretch that it would include "leftover hits". And so what if he did? That does not verify anything. Lol.

2) The fact that he complimented Wyclef means nothing about what I said about "B.O.T.D.F.". Lol. Wow. Where does you all's reasoning come from? Lol.

3) I never said "HIStory: Past, Present, And Future - BOOK I" was not a massive success. Sheesh. I said it was under promoted. If anything in the U.S. where "Earth Song" was not released as a single with it's constant airplay on MTV and VH1 and success around the world and in particular in Europe. Six "short promotional films" is less that the thirteen that were made for "Dangerous". Math alert. In terms of how many singles were released that WOULD depend on how you are counting what since there so many variations for remixes, et al.

4) Is there a break down in communication? I was specifically saying that however the information that was communicated to the public through the media as well as Sony did not acknowledged worldwide sales on any significant level. Something like that does not happen by accident. Dates are your friend. The media were not reporting on "Dangerous"'s worldwide sales before the Chandler situation. THOUGH that certainly did not help on getting basic information out BUT it sure as hell did not prevent Sony from acknowledging worldwide sales to the public. ...and "Dangerous" did outsell "Bad" or was at least tied with worldwide sales. One way or the other you are AGREEING with me that entirely and highly significant information was not communicated to the public.

5) I DID miscommunicate saying that there were no "short promotional films" for "Invincible". That's right. "You Rock My World" and "Cry". Both of which were horrible on multiple levels for different reasons. Embarrassing doesn't begin to explain them EXCEPT again for the fact that Michael was at that point in time being sabotaged by Sony.

6) So you are agreeing with me Sony did not do anything more than were contractually obligated to promote "Invincible". Do you even realize what you are saying and the rest of you are agreeing with?

7) I did not say how much "Invincible" sold at years end. Read it again instead of listening to the voices in your head. I said in the first few months THOUGH the eight million in sales could have been later in 2002 I don't know that exactly.

8) What Michael did and did not do with "Invincible" was entirely the standard in terms of people's concept of what was being promoted and not and the reasons behind it all. It does not give the impression to people that the artist does not care about promotion of a project except those who are either misinformed or uninformed of what was going on. There are always many reasons as to the who's, how's, where's, when's, and or why's things do and or do not happen. Michael made it very clear that he thought "Invincible" was one of if not his best studio l.p.s. The reason Michael did the amount of promotion backs up what I am saying and not you BECAUSE he specifically did nothing more than he was obligated to do. Which if you even comprehended what you were saying you would know that you are agreeing with I am talking about. Sheesh. Unless you are straight up lying which seems most likely since what you are saying is so backwards and more than likely intentionally misleading that for the benefit of your intelligence I will go with the idea that you simply don't know what you are talking about though that hardly seems to be the case. I have no idea who was paying what but if you can make your money back in due time plus more it does not matter how much it cost to make it. No one including yourself by admitting how little was done for promotion for "Invincible" believes the outright lie that thirty million dollars was spent promoting this project. You clearly see and agree that it has none of the "short promotional films" or packaging that "HIStory: Past, Present, And Future - BOOK I" has. Of course if you actually bought it instead of stealing these items you would know this.

Your statements are not explained by ignorance but by a conscious decision to mislead people. So no I don't know who you work for nor have I said you all work for Sony though that certainly seems possible by the willful teaming up against me by the following posters as well as the willingness to not take into account what has been stated by myself. You certainly are not someone who supports Michael Jackson.
 
Last edited:

AlwaysThere

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
4,888
Points
113

Not going to quote your entire post.

1) You made the insistence that Michael was against reissuing previously released material, though that completely contradicts several projects that had either been put into production or released with his cooperation between 1989 and 2009. History: Book II was apparently a topic of discussion, as Brad Buxer and Rob Hoffman had said, but was never put into production.

2) Fair enough. Let's get back to exactly what you wrote: Where does your claim that Michael's own remixes were rejected come from? Please provide some evidence.

3) You made the insistence that Sony under promoted History, which could not be any less accurate. Michael had already broken chart records with "Scream/Childhood" and "You Are Not Alone"; withholding "Earth Song" hardly hurt anything. There's no evidence that "Earth Song" would have even been a success if you factor in music that was popular on the charts; if anything, "This Time Around" should have been issued, considering it included one of the hottest rappers in the world at that point. (It's also hilariously ironic that you made the snide comment "math alert!" when you listed the wrong number of short films made for Dangerous. It wasn't thirteen, genius, it was nine: "Jam," "In the Closet," "Remember the Time," "Heal the World," "Black or White," "Who Is It," "Give in to Me," "Will You Be There," and "Gone Too Soon". Math alert!)

4) It seems to me that you have no understanding of how record labels work, but that's besides the point. Fact of the matter is, the media had been discussing Michael's decreasing sales for decades. Look it up for five minutes. There was rampant discussion in 1987 over whether or not Bad would come close to Thriller's sales numbers, followed by questions of "did the album fail?" when it ultimately didn't. The very same thing happened with Dangerous. (Also, quick fact: there is no tie between Bad and Dangerous. Bad sold more.)

5) Are you blaming the quality of the Invincible short films on Sony? Hardly. "You Rock My World" was put together entirely with Michael's cooperation, and it was director Nick Brandt's idea for "Cry" to not include him at all.

6) Sony did more for Invincible than Michael did. It is true that they did not put their full financial backing into Invincible as they had with Dangerous or History, though that is completely justifiable on various fronts, particularly considering what I said before regarding their approach to Michael leaving the company. The Invincible campaign was lackluster in comparison to previous outings, but on its own, it was a solid effort. You simply over exaggerate the seriousness of it.

7) The exact wording of your claim was, "Mere less it selling eight million copies in the first few months after debuting at number one in the U.S. and worldwide in 11 other countries." I pointed out that this claim is completely false, acknowledging that Invincible only managed three million by the end of the year. (A respectable number, but not nearly close to what you posted.)

8) By the end of 2001, Sony had issued two singles from Invincible ("You Rock My World" and "Cry"), both of which were supplemented with music videos. Various posters and television commercials were also put into production and debuted across the globe. Not to mention that Sony had paid for most, if not ALL of the studio fees for Michael and his producers/musicians/engineers to record for four straight years. (The $30 million claim is grossly exaggerated, but they certainly put an obscene amount of money into this project.) Michael, meanwhile, engaged in an album signing event in New York City, did one or two interviews, had performed "You Rock My World" during his two Madison Square Garden shows, and... that's it. No public performances of album tracks, no extended interview campaign, no worldwide tour. He did more to sabotage Invincible than Sony did! The packaging of Invincible was on par with every album that had come before it, with the sole exception of History due to that being a double-disc album; not sure what point you were trying to make there.

The thing about your post that gets on my nerves is that you are talking down to myself and other users. You speak as if you hold the sum of all Michael Jackson knowledge which, considering how wrong almost all of your posts are, is comical. You clearly have no understanding of anything you are talking about and are simply spouting the same fan propaganda that has been circulating for years. I'm in a constant pursuit of knowledge and will openly admit when I'm wrong, but that won't be an issue with you.

This rudeness and crass about your attitude is unnecessary, and I would advise you to tone it down. I'd also suggest you look up some of the information you're discussing BEFORE posting it arrogantly, so you won't be proven wrong and embarrassed.
 
Top