Invincible 25th Anniversary

[MsAshley]

First of all, Sony didn’t spend 25 million on advertising. That’s a lie from Mottola. They spent 10 million at most (6 million of which went to the You Rock My World music video). The album basically had no promotion at all! Just 2-3 promo clips, and they even used only Michael’s face as a promo photo everywhere! This is despite the fact that Michael participated in at least two photo shoots, the shots from which could have easily been used to promote the album.

And I’m not even mentioning that neither of the two commercial singles was properly released! YRMW and Cry were only sold in Europe. And the cover featured that same single shot of Michael’s face... They were cutting corners on advertising big time, and that, of course, prevented Invincible from being promoted properly.

The fact that Mottola wanted a finished album from Michael by the end of 1999 was obviously stupid. Michael spent an average of about 4 years recording a new album. It was dumb to demand more from him. And don’t forget that in 1997, Mike released the Ghosts short film and the BOTDF remix album. All of that took up a lot of time. Invincible was meant to be released exactly in 2001.

And by the way, you didn’t mention that Sony wasn’t even happy with the album in 1999. That’s exactly why Michael had to add new songs. Most of the tracks are actually from 2001. Only 4-5 songs from the final tracklist were recorded before 2000.

Both Michael and Mottola are to blame for Invincible failing. But Mottola is more to blame because he really wanted to say "No" just to stroke his own ego. I’ve read fragments of his book. You can clearly see he was proud of being the only one who could refuse Michael. The guy just wanted to assert himself: "Look, I said no and put the King of Pop himself in his place!"

Two years later, this idiot was kicked out of Sony in disgrace. It was bound to happen

1. You'll need to evidence the claim Tommy is lying about the budget. While you mention the 6 million for You Rock My World, which was still a massive expense, it was only the tip of the iceberg. The 30 million promotional budget included global television ad buys (Sony spent millions on "prime-time" TV spots globally. Unlike today's social media ads, 30-second TV slots in 2001 cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per airing), massive physical displays in record stores across 11+ countries (to get Invincible as the "featured" album in thousands of Tower Records, Virgin Megastores, and HMV locations globally, labels pay "co-op" advertising fees. This ensured that every person walking into a record store in 2001 saw Michael’s face first), and the 30th Anniversary Celebration specials at Madison Square Garden, which Sony helped facilitate as a launch event. To say only $10 million was spent ignores the standard 2:1 ratio of marketing-to-production costs for A listers. I do see how citing just a few things they did while ignoring the totality helps this claim. It strikes me as largely ignorant of how marketing works.

Similarly, the use of the "face" photo wasn't a result of "cutting corners"; it was a high-concept branding decision designed by Albert Watson. In the world of high-end marketing, a single, consistent image is often more effective for "icon status" than a variety of shots. Michael himself approved the minimalist aesthetic, which was meant to mirror the eyes-only mystery of Dangerous's cover. Early Y2K was very big on this sort of aesthetic, so I'm not sure how or why you're complaining about this.

When Michael refused to tour, the "math" for the album died. Tommy Mottola didn't stop promotion to be mean; he stopped it because the album had become a guaranteed financial loss for the shareholders. Also, you mentioned Cry and YMW, but getting a song like Butterflies to climb the charts without a music video requires a massive "street team" and radio promotion budget to ensure DJs keep the track in high rotation, so that in itself would also require a lot of money. I'm not going to argue Sony was perfect and did everything right, but it's not as bad as people here make it out to be. I remember Invincible being everywhere at the time too lol, it's just that Michael had an extremely bad rep at the time. Combine that with CDs selling less in 2001 (onset of the digital age) and it was already a recipe for disaster even discounting the loan Michael spent from Sony.

2. Demanding an album by 1999 wasn't "stupid"--it was a contractual necessity. Sony had already fronted nearly $30 million in recording costs (making it the most expensive album in history at the time). In any business, a two-year delay on a $25 million investment creates a massive financial deficit. The "demand" for the album was an attempt to save the project from becoming a "black hole" of unrecoupable debt. Tommy was not thrilled with this obviously and it created strain, but the two weren't on terrible terms in 2000. The two had agreed to released the album in early 2001. Naturally, nobody was thrilled when Michael did not have the songs mixed and ready to go that autumn like he said he would.

The fact that most of the album was recorded in 2001 actually proves Sony's support. If the label truly wanted to "sabotage" Michael, they would have forced him to release the 1999 version. Instead, they allowed him to scrap years of work and spend millions more to hire Darkchild (and also Teddy Riley, and apparently Bryan Loren again) to modernize the sound for 2001. That is the opposite of "cutting corners."

Also yeah, here's a quick list I threw together:

Threatened - 2001
Whatever Happens - Dec 1998
TLC - November 2000
YMW - October 1999
Cry - 2000-2001
Don't Walk Away - 2001
Privacy - 1999
You Are My Life - Sept 2001
2000 watts - 2000-2001
Speechless - March 2000
Butterflies - 2001
Heaven Can Wait - 2001
Break of Dawn - Aug 1999
Invincible - 1999 - Summer 2000
Heartbreaker - 2001
Unbreakable - early 2000

I do not recall Sony ever saying they did not like the tracks produced in 1999, as Break of Dawn and She Was Lovin' Me were both particularly liked. Where did you get it from? Was it something I missed in Tommy's book?

5. Tommy did have an ego yeah, but that resulted mostly in petty squabbling about singles and music videos. The big stuff, like Michael wanting to break his contract and screw them over financially, was far more important.

6. Blood on the Dancefloor did not take very much time at all, and Michael largely seemed to rush it (compare what he said about Superfly Sister and 7 Digits). The dates he took to do anything in the studio were also minimal and done on off days. Plus, the songs for the album were all recycled from other albums.

 

[threatened2020]

I guess this thread is acceptable to post what I typed up. @threatened2020

Yeah because time is money. Sometime in 1999, Michael invited Tommy and Cory Rooney to listen to Break of Dawn in the studio. This would've been around January-February if I had to guess. Both of the executives were ecstatic because the song was fantastic. Tommy then recommended Cory to write something for Michael, which is how She Was Lovin' Me came to be; it was recorded between late March and early April of the same year. Tommy and Michael had a good working relationship during this period and Sony was fully behind the project. Tommy wanted the album released the fourth quarter of the year so Michael would be set for the new millennium. Mind you, Michael had been recording the album for going on two years already at this point (from October 1997 onward).

From 1997 through 2001, Michael spent between 30-40 million dollars (there are no exact numbers, just around 30 or more), and that is not counting the additional 25-30 million Sony dropped on it for promotions after the fact. 55-75 million dollars is a lot of money for a single album, especially when you consider the album was not making back the budget spent on it. Should Tommy have dumped many more millions of dollars on it when it was already tanking? More promotion would have helped, but it would have created more debt in the process.

Anyway, in autumn of 2000, Michael had told Sony he was going to start having the songs mixed and ready for an early 2001 release. He flaked and did not do that. Instead, not only did he not properly communicate what he was doing, but he decided to extend the budget further and make more songs. If you were a Sony VP, would you be happy about this? Of course not. This was around the period when there was a bit of drama with Tyrese, who begrudgingly let him have 2000 Watts. Can you believe Michael just yoinked someone's title track?

Tommy was still not too angry with Michael, as he invited him to his wedding in December of that year. All was still fine even if they were not pleased with the amount of money and time taken. Just because you're Michael Jackson does not mean you get to spend unlimited money that isn't even yours. That's bad business, and it's something no one else would even remotely get away with it.

Michael had a meeting with the Sony executives in June of 2001. They listened to the album and were not thrilled. Apparently, the room went quiet and got tense. I'd probably have to look, but it was either this meeting or one after where Tommy and Michael got into a heated argument about the singles that would be released. Michael desperately needed to be reeled back in from whatever the **** was going on with the tracks he chose, and Sony was trying to do that, but he would not listen. All that happened was Shout got replaced (but this was around September and may not have involved Sony at all)... which was the wrong song to drop for sure. It was during this meeting that Michael withdrew, dropping his desire for Unbreakable to be the lead single, instead opting for what Sony wanted: You Rock My World. Michael agreed to start the process for filming the music video right away.

Later meetings would have Tommy and Michael arguing about which songs would get additional music videos--Michael wanted a video for Unbreakable and Threatened, but there were two problems. Michael wanted to break his contract and screw Sony out of money while also retaining full control of the album. Tommy was pissed and withdrew funding. Michael still had a door though, if he toured then they could make back money for the album. But given Michael's refusal to tour after 9/11 with the album sales sinking in spite of promotion, Sony was done with him at the time. Michael claimed he would fund it, but that never happened. While a tour would have increased the aforementioned debt further, it would have likely evened it out in the end. That was really all Michael could do given how poorly things were going, and according to Michael Prince, he was going to tour. Then 9/11 happened, and he changed his mind (Michael hated to tour as we know, so this was likely an excuse).

November of 2001 would be pivotal for Michael, as he went to Times Square to promote the album, but there was a lot of screaming and yelling going on in the background. This would be roughly when Michael would get angry about kicking Sony out of the picture and retaining complete control. Tommy gave him immediate backlash by refusing to air What More Can I Give (just a few days after the Times Square promotion). Michael made a lot of threats against the Sony executives, mainly Tommy, at the time. Those threats would be realized the following year.

Because of Sony withdrawing due to Michael's insane demands and refusal to cooperate, he went on his little anti-Sony/Tommy tour during the summer of 2002.

Michael still had to release an album and a boxset given his contract he signed shortly after Janet signed her Virgin contract, which topped hers... seems petty, but it could just be a coincidence. Michael was still on okay terms after the Invincible fiasco, because he received a cash advance for the Ultimate edition in 2004 before it was released. Things are not entirely what they appear.

This is just a basic overview, but there's been a lot of people that have talked at length about the innerworkings of the album and what actually happened. This is just from my memory right now. Michael took several years, spent a ton of money, wouldn't tour to make it back amid less than great sales, and then got angry Sony withdrew promotions over what happened in the background. I do agree with Michael though, Unbreakable would have been a better lead single than You Rock My World. And the video concept sounds a lot cooler too.

Thanks so much for such a lengthy write up.

I am a massive MJ fan, but he was human, and humans have faults.

Mike probably got too big for his boots, dragged the album on and on, and then had a full on strop when things didnt go his way.

Even Karen Faye said he likes to play the victim.

This is just human behaviour, and not hate. It's just a reality.

I truly believe if he had released the album in 2000 (around time of the world music awards) he would have smashed it out of the park.

 

[MsAshley]

Thanks so much for such a lengthy write up.

I am a massive MJ fan, but he was human, and humans have faults.

Mike probably got too big for his boots, dragged the album on and on, and then had a full on strop when things didnt go his way.

Even Karen Faye said he likes to play the victim.

This is just human behaviour, and not hate. It's just a reality.

I truly believe if he had released the album in 2000 (around time of the world music awards) he would have smashed it out of the park.

I agree with you, a 2000 release would have been a huge success. Tommy himself was also really awful to Michael in the past over similar problems with Dangerous, so I understand why some fans think the situation was exactly the same with Invincible. Michael's perception of why things went wrong in 2001 could have also been colored by how he was treated during Dangerous as well, it's hard to say what exactly his thought process was. And for the record, I do not like Tommy Mottola at all, but I think it's important to humanize Michael and just tell the truth about what happened with the album. While Sony screwed up too, at least they were on good terms enough in 2004 that Michael was trusted with another million+ advance, and it worked out too. We really have the Arvizos and Bashir to blame for everything going awry past that point.

 

[threatened2020]

I do believe that around 2001 Mike seemed to have some form of 'mid life crisis', the sudden surgery which obviously made him insecure about his appearance (YRMW), his vocals in certain 'Invincible' tracks feels like he is unable to breathe correctly. The random events like 'the double decker bus' seemed all out of the blue. Maybe the worry of aging? Mental health? Anxiety?

He most likely was suffering some form of PTSD from the 1993 allegations too.

Geniuses normally do suffer in some way.

 

[Paul MCC]

1. You'll need to evidence the claim Tommy is lying about the budget. While you mention the 6 million for You Rock My World, which was still a massive expense, it was only the tip of the iceberg. The 30 million promotional budget included global television ad buys (Sony spent millions on "prime-time" TV spots globally. Unlike today's social media ads, 30-second TV slots in 2001 cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per airing), massive physical displays in record stores across 11+ countries (to get Invincible as the "featured" album in thousands of Tower Records, Virgin Megastores, and HMV locations globally, labels pay "co-op" advertising fees. This ensured that every person walking into a record store in 2001 saw Michael’s face first), and the 30th Anniversary Celebration specials at Madison Square Garden, which Sony helped facilitate as a launch event. To say only $10 million was spent ignores the standard 2:1 ratio of marketing-to-production costs for A listers. I do see how citing just a few things they did while ignoring the totality helps this claim. It strikes me as largely ignorant of how marketing works.

Similarly, the use of the "face" photo wasn't a result of "cutting corners"; it was a high-concept branding decision designed by Albert Watson. In the world of high-end marketing, a single, consistent image is often more effective for "icon status" than a variety of shots. Michael himself approved the minimalist aesthetic, which was meant to mirror the eyes-only mystery of Dangerous's cover. Early Y2K was very big on this sort of aesthetic, so I'm not sure how or why you're complaining about this.

When Michael refused to tour, the "math" for the album died. Tommy Mottola didn't stop promotion to be mean; he stopped it because the album had become a guaranteed financial loss for the shareholders. Also, you mentioned Cry and YMW, but getting a song like Butterflies to climb the charts without a music video requires a massive "street team" and radio promotion budget to ensure DJs keep the track in high rotation, so that in itself would also require a lot of money. I'm not going to argue Sony was perfect and did everything right, but it's not as bad as people here make it out to be. I remember Invincible being everywhere at the time too lol, it's just that Michael had an extremely bad rep at the time. Combine that with CDs selling less in 2001 (onset of the digital age) and it was already a recipe for disaster even discounting the loan Michael spent from Sony.

2. Demanding an album by 1999 wasn't "stupid"--it was a contractual necessity. Sony had already fronted nearly $30 million in recording costs (making it the most expensive album in history at the time). In any business, a two-year delay on a $25 million investment creates a massive financial deficit. The "demand" for the album was an attempt to save the project from becoming a "black hole" of unrecoupable debt. Tommy was not thrilled with this obviously and it created strain, but the two weren't on terrible terms in 2000. The two had agreed to released the album in early 2001. Naturally, nobody was thrilled when Michael did not have the songs mixed and ready to go that autumn like he said he would.

The fact that most of the album was recorded in 2001 actually proves Sony's support. If the label truly wanted to "sabotage" Michael, they would have forced him to release the 1999 version. Instead, they allowed him to scrap years of work and spend millions more to hire Darkchild (and also Teddy Riley, and apparently Bryan Loren again) to modernize the sound for 2001. That is the opposite of "cutting corners."

Also yeah, here's a quick list I threw together:

Threatened - 2001
Whatever Happens - Dec 1998
TLC - November 2000
YMW - October 1999
Cry - 2000-2001
Don't Walk Away - 2001
Privacy - 1999
You Are My Life - Sept 2001
2000 watts - 2000-2001
Speechless - March 2000
Butterflies - 2001
Heaven Can Wait - 2001
Break of Dawn - Aug 1999
Invincible - 1999 - Summer 2000
Heartbreaker - 2001
Unbreakable - early 2000

I do not recall Sony ever saying they did not like the tracks produced in 1999, as Break of Dawn and She Was Lovin' Me were both particularly liked. Where did you get it from? Was it something I missed in Tommy's book?

5. Tommy did have an ego yeah, but that resulted mostly in petty squabbling about singles and music videos. The big stuff, like Michael wanting to break his contract and screw them over financially, was far more important.

6. Blood on the Dancefloor did not take very much time at all, and Michael largely seemed to rush it (compare what he said about Superfly Sister and 7 Digits). The dates he took to do anything in the studio were also minimal and done on off days. Plus, the songs for the album were all recycled from other albums.

You’re slightly off regarding the recording dates:

Whatever Happens was recorded in 2001 (you’re confusing it with the demo).

2000 Watts (along with all of Riley's tracks) was recorded in 2001. Teddy only joined Michael in 2001.

Invincible - Summer of 2000 (after Unbreakable, as Michael originally wanted to name the album Unbreakable).

You shouldn't use Tommy’s book as an absolute source of truth. He didn't explicitly say he disliked the album in 1999, but other sources have mentioned it (I read about it somewhere on MJJC). Plus, it’s indirectly confirmed by the fact that Mottola ultimately didn't believe in the record. He even wanted to cut the song The Lost Children entirely. Let's just say, based on everything we know, he made it clear to Michael from the start that the album wouldn't be a hit on the scale of Thriller and would earn significantly less. This infuriated Michael, which is why he started adding more fresh tracks.

As for the deadline - it was impossible! Again, Michael used to spend 4 years on an album. He physically couldn't have finished it by 1999. The material was raw. If I were in Michael’s shoes, I would have asked for another year to polish it. Tracks like Privacy, Threatened, and Whatever Happens really needed more time to reach peak quality.

By your logic, should Sony have spent $60 million on marketing? But that didn't happen. At best, they spent $25 million. That’s less than they spent on History. Again, it turns out Sony was cutting major corners on advertising.

I wasn't talking about the album cover, but the photos for the commercial singles. Why did every single of Michael’s previously have a unique photo on the cover? For Invincible, it’s just the same face everywhere... Even for Cry, all they came up with was a photoshopped tear... It’s a joke. Albert Watson took a ton of photos, as did Arno Bani and André Rau - where is all of that? All those shots could have been used to create a stylish promotional campaign.

And here’s where you’re wrong: by 2001, Michael’s reputation was actually slightly better than it was in 1995. The sad fact is that Invincible could have outsold History. In 1995, Michael’s reputation was shattered by the allegations, but by 2001, eight years had passed. Many people had started to view him more favorably. I’m certain that with proper promotion, Invincible would have sold 20–25 million copies.

In the end, we have 15 million copies sold to date... For an album that had such disjointed promotion back in 2001, that is an incredible result

 

[MsAshley]

You’re slightly off regarding the recording dates:

Whatever Happens was recorded in 2001 (you’re confusing it with the demo).

2000 Watts (along with all of Riley's tracks) was recorded in 2001. Teddy only joined Michael in 2001.

Invincible - Summer of 2000 (after Unbreakable, as Michael originally wanted to name the album Unbreakable).

You shouldn't use Tommy’s book as an absolute source of truth. He didn't explicitly say he disliked the album in 1999, but other sources have mentioned it (I read about it somewhere on MJJC). Plus, it’s indirectly confirmed by the fact that Mottola ultimately didn't believe in the record. He even wanted to cut the song The Lost Children entirely. Let's just say, based on everything we know, he made it clear to Michael from the start that the album wouldn't be a hit on the scale of Thriller and would earn significantly less. This infuriated Michael, which is why he started adding more fresh tracks.

As for the deadline - it was impossible! Again, Michael used to spend 4 years on an album. He physically couldn't have finished it by 1999. The material was raw. If I were in Michael’s shoes, I would have asked for another year to polish it. Tracks like Privacy, Threatened, and Whatever Happens really needed more time to reach peak quality.

By your logic, should Sony have spent $60 million on marketing? But that didn't happen. At best, they spent $25 million. That’s less than they spent on History. Again, it turns out Sony was cutting major corners on advertising.

I wasn't talking about the album cover, but the photos for the commercial singles. Why did every single of Michael’s previously have a unique photo on the cover? For Invincible, it’s just the same face everywhere... Even for Cry, all they came up with was a photoshopped tear... It’s a joke. Albert Watson took a ton of photos, as did Arno Bani and André Rau - where is all of that? All those shots could have been used to create a stylish promotional campaign.

And here’s where you’re wrong: by 2001, Michael’s reputation was actually slightly better than it was in 1995. The sad fact is that Invincible could have outsold History. In 1995, Michael’s reputation was shattered by the allegations, but by 2001, eight years had passed. Many people had started to view him more favorably. I’m certain that with proper promotion, Invincible would have sold 20–25 million copies.

In the end, we have 15 million copies sold to date... For an album that had such disjointed promotion back in 2001, that is an incredible result

The source I have says the demo of Whatever Happens was recorded in 1997 with Michael first laying down vocals in December 1999 for his version, but that it also wasn't completed until 2001. 2000 Watts yeah, March 2000 is the demo apparently for Tyrese that Michael later heard. I did a little digging and found nothing on Invincible besides claims. Claims of 1999 and 2000 for the initial demo. Regardless, that was just something I threw together in a few minutes off Google.

I did not use Tommy's book as the only source, but I weighed it with other sources as anyone should. And yes you're correct about The Lost Children, and I want it cut too--it's an awful song. That's what I was getting at when they had a series of meetings in 2001, particularly where Michael and Tommy argued about the tracklisting, with the main compromise being the singles. The Lost Children was the worst song he ever recorded until World of Candy was leaked, so I totally get where he's coming from with this.

But was Tommy wrong? Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory failed to reach Thriller's heights, and they were far better albums than Invincible or what Michael was doing from 1997-1999. Tommy boasted about the contract Michael signed, which is where the "this will make us a billion+" came from. That would have been Dangerous, HIStory, Blood, Invincible, and the Ultimate Edition primarily, though there were small caveats listed as well. I think it's rather clear that Tommy believed in to the same degree he believed in the last two albums, not anything less really, and his reactions to the songs we know about were positive. I think that's a separate issue/claim from comparing it to Thriller.

Michael had more than enough material by 1999 to put out an album, so that just is not true. Mind you, you're not being consistent here. While Michael started recording tracks in 1997, it would have been six years between albums. Michael was well aware in advance what Sony wanted but hardly cared about the deadline. Privacy is an awful track that no amount of polish could save--he should have scrapped it. There were plenty of other outtakes from 97-99 like Another Day, A Place with No Name, Escape, She Was Lovin' Me, Blue Gangsta, Seeing Voices or even unreleased tracks he could have reworked like Much Too Soon, In the Back, Changes, You Don't Love Me, Ghost of Another Lover, etc. The list goes on, but I would argue the bulk of songs from the late 90s sound far better in quality, as well as vocals, than most of what was given in 2001. I really like Heaven Can Wait and Unbreakable too, but there are a lot of weak, later songs on Invincible.

Frankly all of the songs crossed out here are weak and could have been replaced. Or just left off entirely for a 10 track album.

By my logic what do you mean? Michael wasn't acting neurotic during HIStory like he was for Invincible, demanding to break contract and refusing to tour; he also did not take nearly as long. 1991-1993 is the Dangerous era. That leaves recording sessions between 1993 and early 1995 (although we know a lot of songs were from the early Dangerous sessions like They Don't Care About us and Earth Song in 1988 and 1989). I am also not aware of Tommy getting on Michael's case or fighting with him during HIStory like he did with Dangerous and Invincible. And I will reiterate, what Tommy did during Dangerous isn't really justifiable even if it was running late.

As far as I'm aware, Michael had total approval over his image. Sony couldn't simply "grab" a photo from the Arno Bani "Golden Eye" shoot and put it on a CD if Michael didn't authorize it for that specific purpose. In 2001, Sony and Michael’s team (initially) pushed for a singular, iconic branding. Using different photographers for different singles was seen as "diluting" the brand. By the time they needed new visuals for Cry, the relationship had soured so badly that neither side was willing to fund or approve new licensing for the Rau or Bani photos. So yeah, the photoshopped tear on the standard face was indeed a low point (for a mediocre song at best nonteheless). However, at that stage, the budget had been frozen because Michael had officially declared war on the label. Labels do not spend money on high-end licensing for a "lame duck" artist who is calling the CEO a devil. Also, consider that Sony also only spent about 30 million HIStory promotions. Sony spent a comparable amount with Invincible so...? I think things would have turned out massively differently if Michael chose to tour and did not make those ludicrous demands behind closed doors. The fact the teen pop explosion was in full swing as digital piracy began also screwed sales, as even Janet's All For You album didn't do too well despite having the number one charting song of the year.

I don't agree that Michael's reputation had recovered much. The tabloids by that point had become vicious and it was far removed from the stories he fed them in the 80s. Maybe in Europe and Japan, but America was very contentious towards him. I mean really, the late 90s and early 2000s were the height of tabloid cruelty if you look back at news clips and papers. Remember, Michael settled, and that was a bad look to the public. Nobody forgot that by 2001. Michael’s changing appearance and eccentric lifestyle were always mocked. It was very common to make Michael Jackson jokes at the time, and they were pretty tasteless. Things only got worse between 2001 and 2003. Don't you remember everyone saying he was a crazy person in 2002 when he dangled Blanket? I don't recall any major news network at the time ever saying anything charitable about him.

 

[Paul MCC]

The source I have says the demo of Whatever Happens was recorded in 1997 with Michael first laying down vocals in December 1999 for his version, but that it also wasn't completed until 2001. 2000 Watts yeah, March 2000 is the demo apparently for Tyrese that Michael later heard. I did a little digging and found nothing on Invincible besides claims. Claims of 1999 and 2000 for the initial demo. Regardless, that was just something I threw together in a few minutes off Google.

I did not use Tommy's book as the only source, but I weighed it with other sources as anyone should. And yes you're correct about The Lost Children, and I want it cut too--it's an awful song. That's what I was getting at when they had a series of meetings in 2001, particularly where Michael and Tommy argued about the tracklisting, with the main compromise being the singles. The Lost Children was the worst song he ever recorded until World of Candy was leaked, so I totally get where he's coming from with this.

But was Tommy wrong? Bad, Dangerous, and HIStory failed to reach Thriller's heights, and they were far better albums than Invincible or what Michael was doing from 1997-1999. Tommy boasted about the contract Michael signed, which is where the "this will make us a billion+" came from. That would have been Dangerous, HIStory, Blood, Invincible, and the Ultimate Edition primarily, though there were small caveats listed as well. I think it's rather clear that Tommy believed in to the same degree he believed in the last two albums, not anything less really, and his reactions to the songs we know about were positive. I think that's a separate issue/claim from comparing it to Thriller.

Michael had more than enough material by 1999 to put out an album, so that just is not true. Mind you, you're not being consistent here. While Michael started recording tracks in 1997, it would have been six years between albums. Michael was well aware in advance what Sony wanted but hardly cared about the deadline. Privacy is an awful track that no amount of polish could save--he should have scrapped it. There were plenty of other outtakes from 97-99 like Another Day, A Place with No Name, Escape, She Was Lovin' Me, Blue Gangsta, Seeing Voices or even unreleased tracks he could have reworked like Much Too Soon, In the Back, Changes, You Don't Love Me, Ghost of Another Lover, etc. The list goes on, but I would argue the bulk of songs from the late 90s sound far better in quality, as well as vocals, than most of what was given in 2001. I really like Heaven Can Wait and Unbreakable too, but there are a lot of weak, later songs on Invincible.

Frankly all of the songs crossed out here are weak and could have been replaced. Or just left off entirely for a 10 track album.

By my logic what do you mean? Michael wasn't acting neurotic during HIStory like he was for Invincible, demanding to break contract and refusing to tour; he also did not take nearly as long. 1991-1993 is the Dangerous era. That leaves recording sessions between 1993 and early 1995 (although we know a lot of songs were from the early Dangerous sessions like They Don't Care About us and Earth Song in 1988 and 1989). I am also not aware of Tommy getting on Michael's case or fighting with him during HIStory like he did with Dangerous and Invincible. And I will reiterate, what Tommy did during Dangerous isn't really justifiable even if it was running late.

As far as I'm aware, Michael had total approval over his image. Sony couldn't simply "grab" a photo from the Arno Bani "Golden Eye" shoot and put it on a CD if Michael didn't authorize it for that specific purpose. In 2001, Sony and Michael’s team (initially) pushed for a singular, iconic branding. Using different photographers for different singles was seen as "diluting" the brand. By the time they needed new visuals for Cry, the relationship had soured so badly that neither side was willing to fund or approve new licensing for the Rau or Bani photos. So yeah, the photoshopped tear on the standard face was indeed a low point (for a mediocre song at best nonteheless). However, at that stage, the budget had been frozen because Michael had officially declared war on the label. Labels do not spend money on high-end licensing for a "lame duck" artist who is calling the CEO a devil. Also, consider that Sony also only spent about 30 million HIStory promotions. Sony spent a comparable amount with Invincible so...? I think things would have turned out massively differently if Michael chose to tour and did not make those ludicrous demands behind closed doors. The fact the teen pop explosion was in full swing as digital piracy began also screwed sales, as even Janet's All For You album didn't do too well despite having the number one charting song of the year.

I don't agree that Michael's reputation had recovered much. The tabloids by that point had become vicious and it was far removed from the stories he fed them in the 80s. Maybe in Europe and Japan, but America was very contentious towards him. I mean really, the late 90s and early 2000s were the height of tabloid cruelty if you look back at news clips and papers. Remember, Michael settled, and that was a bad look to the public. Nobody forgot that by 2001. Michael’s changing appearance and eccentric lifestyle were always mocked. It was very common to make Michael Jackson jokes at the time, and they were pretty tasteless. Things only got worse between 2001 and 2003. Don't you remember everyone saying he was a crazy person in 2002 when he dangled Blanket? I don't recall any major news network at the time ever saying anything charitable about him.

Once again. Whatever Happens was recorded by Michael in 2001, only after Teddy arrived. The same applies to 2000 Watts.

The Lost Children is a good song that Michael adored. Saying it’s awful is an extremely subjective opinion, and most MJ fans would disagree with you.

History earned less because of the 1993 allegations. It’s obvious that without them, the album would have sold roughly as much as Dangerous.

Again with the subjectivity. Most of the material in 1999 was raw. Many of the 2001 tracks were actually worthy; they just needed more time. Most of the outtakes you listed are half-baked, with the exception of Blue Gangsta and Escape.

By "logic" I mean marketing costs. The $60 million figure wasn't even close, even if you take Mottola’s word for it.

The album absolutely could have been promoted outside the U.S.! That was one of the ways to make a lot of money. He didn't dangle Blanket until 2002 - you’re getting confused. The point is that before that incident, Michael’s reputation wasn't as terrible as it was in 1995.

Speechless is objectively one of the strongest songs on the album. The ones that should have been cut are 2000 Watts, Cry, You Are My Life, and Privacy - though the latter just needed a bit more polish.

 

[threatened2020]

His behaviour during interviews/appearances are very different from 1995-1997 and 2001-2003, it is like a different person.

 

[Paul MCC]

The man went through a divorce, the birth of his children, the 1999 trauma, and a massive amount of tabloid trash! Obviously, he became a different person.

It’s pointless to deny the influence of meds on Michael during this period. But it’s also foolish to be surprised that he changed. After all, he could still perform and come up with new choreography. It’s just that he started to be surrounded by the wrong people

 

[Markus-MJ]

Since I have been a fan for a long time, I was shocked in 2001 about his condition at 30 anniversary shows in New York

 

[MsAshley]

Once again. Whatever Happens was recorded by Michael in 2001, only after Teddy arrived. The same applies to 2000 Watts.

The Lost Children is a good song that Michael adored. Saying it’s awful is an extremely subjective opinion, and most MJ fans would disagree with you.

History earned less because of the 1993 allegations. It’s obvious that without them, the album would have sold roughly as much as Dangerous.

Again with the subjectivity. Most of the material in 1999 was raw. Many of the 2001 tracks were actually worthy; they just needed more time. Most of the outtakes you listed are half-baked, with the exception of Blue Gangsta and Escape.

By "logic" I mean marketing costs. The $60 million figure wasn't even close, even if you take Mottola’s word for it.

The album absolutely could have been promoted outside the U.S.! That was one way to make a lot of money. He didn't dangle Blanket until 2002 - you’re getting confused. The point is that before that incident, Michael’s reputation wasn't as terrible as it was in 1995.

Speechless is objectively one of the strongest songs on the album. The ones that should have been cut are 2000 Watts, Cry, You Are My Life, and Privacy - though the latter just needed a bit more polish.

I'm not sure why this source is arguing it was recorded in the late 90s then. I wonder if it's because Teddy contradicted himself and that was taken as gospel or something, since he can't seem to get recording dates straight.

I do not think most Michael Jackson fans would disagree with me, but yes it is subjective. It seems to evidence, if anything, Michael's decline in quality over the years. Even Neverland Landing is a superior song. The fact he forced his kids to sing this garbage would have been trauma-inducing. And Speechless is a strong song? It's an instant skip for me every single time. It's like a poor woman's Heal the World.

The album did sell roughly similar given the fact it was a double album. The difference between Dangerous and HIStory was nowhere near as stark as between HIStory and Invincible.

I think you have bad taste honestly (no one that likes The Lost Children has good taste, sorry). The original version of Another Day alone blows most of what was on Invincible out of the water. If you think TLC is better than that... okay. You have your opinion, for some reason. There's really only a few 2001 songs that sound really good, like Heaven Can Wait. I think most people would have greatly preferred a "raw" MJ at that point anyway, or even better, an unplugged album. It certainly would have aged better, especially considering the 90s vocals are objectively stronger.

The 60 million figure is close and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise while I have provided numerous ways in which Michael and Sony racked up that insane bill. It's not "just" Tommy's word, you can actually go back and look and then cross-reference it with average pricing like I did for TV ads and so forth.

How am I getting confused when I explicitly stated 2002? Did you even read what I wrote? I was clearly showing what a downward spiral it was in the early 00s. His rep was in the toilet. I don't know where you're getting the idea his rep was better than it was in 1995 just because the allegations were a few more years out. So what? What is your evidence beyond that?

Yeah, Sony could have promoted it in Europe more where Michael wasn't as contentious. There was room for improvement as I said. I never FULLY blamed Michael just like you never fully blamed Sony.

2000 Watts could be cut also, but I think it's a unique enough song that it stands apart from the other weaker tracks.

 

[MsAshley]

Since I have been a fan for a long time, I was shocked in 2001 about his condition at 30 anniversary shows in New York

I'm pretty sure he was high during most of it. I think this is around when he overdosed too.

 

[Paul MCC]

I'm not sure why this source is arguing it was recorded in the late 90s then. I wonder if it's because Teddy contradicted himself and that was taken as gospel or something, since he can't seem to get recording dates straight.

I do not think most Michael Jackson fans would disagree with me, but yes it is subjective. It seems to evidence, if anything, Michael's decline in quality over the years. Even Neverland Landing is a superior song. The fact he forced his kids to sing this garbage would have been trauma-inducing. And Speechless is a strong song? It's an instant skip for me every single time. It's like a poor woman's Heal the World.

The album did sell roughly similar given the fact it was a double album. The difference between Dangerous and HIStory was nowhere near as stark as between HIStory and Invincible.

I think you have bad taste honestly (no one that likes The Lost Children has good taste, sorry). The original version of Another Day alone blows most of what was on Invincible out of the water. If you think TLC is better than that... okay. You have your opinion, for some reason. There's really only a few 2001 songs that sound really good, like Heaven Can Wait. I think most people would have greatly preferred a "raw" MJ at that point anyway, or even better, an unplugged album. It certainly would have aged better, especially considering the 90s vocals are objectively stronger.

The 60 million figure is close and you have failed to demonstrate otherwise while I have provided numerous ways in which Michael and Sony racked up that insane bill. It's not "just" Tommy's word, you can actually go back and look and then cross-reference it with average pricing like I did for TV ads and so forth.

How am I getting confused when I explicitly stated 2002? Did you even read what I wrote? I was clearly showing what a downward spiral it was in the early 00s. His rep was in the toilet. I don't know where you're getting the idea his rep was better than it was in 1995 just because the allegations were a few more years out. So what? What is your evidence beyond that?

Yeah, Sony could have promoted it in Europe more where Michael wasn't as contentious. There was room for improvement as I said. I never FULLY blamed Michael just like you never fully blamed Sony.

2000 Watts could be cut also, but I think it's a unique enough song that it stands apart from the other weaker tracks.

First you say it’s all subjective, but then you tell me I have bad taste. Dude, you’re literally contradicting yourself.

There are only 3 or 4 weak, mediocre, tracks on Invincible. The other 12 are good, at the very least. Moreover, 8 of those 12 are great! And out of those 8 great ones, 3 are absolute perfection. For the record, that’s classic Michael - he always had about 3 phenomenal songs that basically carried the entire album.

Again, you’re missing the point. According to your logic, Mottola should have spent 60 million on promoting Invincible, yet in his own book, he confirmed he only spent 25 million. This means Mottola didn’t even put in half the effort required to give the album proper promotion.

I’m not blaming Sony for the album’s failure. Once again, you misunderstood me. I blame Michael and Mottola - exactly those two people. However, I’m smart enough to realize that Mottola is more to blame. He didn't believe in the album from the very start and was so desperate to say 'No' to Michael. That’s what caused Michael to lose his cool. Perhaps if Mottola had acted more professionally and watched his mouth, the relationship between the two would have been much smoother.

Just to give you an idea of the general consensus here, I’m attaching a ranking of the album’s tracks based on the opinions of many people I’ve surveyed.

16. You Are My Life
15. 2000 Watts
14. Privacy
13. Cry
12. Invincible
11. Don't Walk Away
10. The Lost Children
9. Heartbreaker
8. Threatened
7. Speechless
6. Whatever Happens
5. Heaven Can Wait
4. Unbreakable
3. Break of Dawn
2. Butterflies
1. You Rock My World

Tracks 13–16 are the ones that are usually considered "bad" by some. But no one in their right mind would call tracks 1–11 bad. Seriously, check different rankings, talk to other fans. You’ll never see a majority of people calling those tracks bad. Your purely subjective opinion just doesn't align with the consensus.

 

[MsAshley]

First you say it’s all subjective, but then you tell me I have bad taste. Dude, you’re literally contradicting yourself.

There are only 3 or 4 weak, mediocre, tracks on Invincible. The other 12 are good, at the very least. Moreover, 8 of those 12 are great! And out of those 8 great ones, 3 are absolute perfection. For the record, that’s classic Michael - he always had about 3 phenomenal songs that basically carried the entire album.

Again, you’re missing the point. According to your logic, Mottola should have spent 60 million on promoting Invincible, yet in his own book, he confirmed he only spent 25 million. This means Mottola didn’t even put in half the effort required to give the album proper promotion.

I’m not blaming Sony for the album’s failure. Once again, you misunderstood me. I blame Michael and Mottola - exactly those two people. However, I’m smart enough to realize that Mottola is more to blame. He didn't believe in the album from the very start and was so desperate to say 'No' to Michael. That’s what caused Michael to lose his cool. Perhaps if Mottola had acted more professionally and watched his mouth, the relationship between the two would have been much smoother.

Just to give you an idea of the general consensus here, I’m attaching a ranking of the album’s tracks based on the opinions of many people I’ve surveyed.

16. You Are My Life
15. 2000 Watts
14. Privacy
13. Cry
12. Invincible
11. Don't Walk Away
10. The Lost Children
9. Heartbreaker
8. Threatened
7. Speechless
6. Whatever Happens
5. Heaven Can Wait
4. Unbreakable
3. Break of Dawn
2. Butterflies
1. You Rock My World

Tracks 13–16 are the ones that are usually considered "bad" by some. But no one in their right mind would call tracks 1–11 bad. Seriously, check different rankings, talk to other fans. You’ll never see a majority of people calling those tracks bad. Your purely subjective opinion just doesn't align with the consensus.

Those aren't mutually exclusive terms though. It can be subjective whilst also saying someone has bad taste, unless you'd like me to try to make some weird objective argument for why The Lost Children is bad?

I do not think most MJ fans would agree with your take on Invincible, and I know most people, and subsequently most people would also disagree. The reception to the album at the time, from the prerelease up until the following year were generally mixed, often negative. Now, I think people were too extreme for sure, as I like Invincible, but that isn't the critical or majority opinion that it's mostly great lol.

You do not understand the logic I'm using if you're saying that. How does my logic point at all in that direction? There was the 25 million dollar advance Michael got, then another 5 million spent after that, plus the 25-30 million spent in promotions. Why would I think they need to spend more after Michael wanted to break contract and refuse to tour? I've been clear about that. HIStory had roughly the same budget and excelled far beyond Invincible. Not sure where that would equate to "half".

Okay, you say Tommy rather than Sony. I would say Sony in general, whatever. But you still haven't addressed the rebuttal to that which has been given twice now. Smart enough to blame Tommy more, but not smart enough to actually debate it? I would agree Tommy should have been more cordial in the Dangerous era. Not so much during Invincible.

You can't be a serious person giving an anecdotal ranking and then saying it's not subjective. In order for it to be objective it needs to be a randomized sample. The closest thing you have to do that are stream numbers, and maybe critics reviews if you were smart about it. Really, this is a very childish attempt to prove your point. It's like saying Superman's more popular than Batman because you've talked to a lot of fans on the playground. Okay?

Also, You Are My Life is better than The Lost Children vocally. It has a far more meaningful and personal message as well. It should have replaced it instead of Shout.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

MJ took way too long to make the album. Was delayed multiple times and he had people sitting around wasting studio time without even turning up to record. Hotel rooms booked etc. It seems towards the end of production he had totally lost interest. I'm not surprised that Sony didn't want to spend the amount MJ may have wanted at the end considering delays and money already spent.

 

[Paul MCC]

Those aren't mutually exclusive terms though. It can be subjective whilst also saying someone has bad taste, unless you'd like me to try to make some weird objective argument for why The Lost Children is bad?

I do not think most MJ fans would agree with your take on Invincible, and I know most people, and subsequently most people would also disagree. The reception to the album at the time, from the prerelease up until the following year were generally mixed, often negative. Now, I think people were too extreme for sure, as I like Invincible, but that isn't the critical or majority opinion that it's mostly great lol.

You do not understand the logic I'm using if you're saying that. How does my logic point at all in that direction? There was the 25 million dollar advance Michael got, then another 5 million spent after that, plus the 25-30 million spent in promotions. Why would I think they need to spend more after Michael wanted to break contract and refuse to tour? I've been clear about that. HIStory had roughly the same budget and excelled far beyond Invincible. Not sure where that would equate to "half".

Okay, you say Tommy rather than Sony. I would say Sony in general, whatever. But you still haven't addressed the rebuttal to that which has been given twice now. Smart enough to blame Tommy more, but not smart enough to actually debate it? I would agree Tommy should have been more cordial in the Dangerous era. Not so much during Invincible.

You can't be a serious person giving an anecdotal ranking and then saying it's not subjective. In order for it to be objective it needs to be a randomized sample. The closest thing you have to do that are stream numbers, and maybe critics reviews if you were smart about it. Really, this is a very childish attempt to prove your point. It's like saying Superman's more popular than Batman because you've talked to a lot of fans on the playground. Okay?

Also, You Are My Life is better than The Lost Children vocally. It has a far more meaningful and personal message as well. It should have replaced it instead of Shout.

I don't mind. It’s just that objectively, you won’t be able to provide a single decent argument for why TLC is a bad song anyway. We both know that.

Sure, but most people agree the album is good. And it gets more love with every passing year. The album really is great because it has songs that give you a clear reason to think so.

You still don’t get it. Based on your logic, Sony should have spent 60 million. But they only spent 25. They didn't fulfill their obligations. Mottola claiming he did everything he could is a total lie! Even by your own logic, they were obligated to spend another 35 million on promotion.

This isn't just my personal ranking; it’s a ranking I put together based on polls and then tweaked slightly in minor spots. For example, if you swap Cry with Privacy, it doesn’t change much. Personally, I think Cry is better than Privacy, even though I know most people would disagree.

But that’s exactly what I did. I looked at the streaming numbers and critic reviews. Like I told you, I had a solid foundation for making this list.

Batman is more popular than Superman. That’s objective, man. And Spider-Man is more popular than Batman. Also objective, believe it or not.

No, YAML wasn’t even written by Michael. Vocally, it sounds bad. TLC is Michael’s personal song and it’s extremely deep. Read up on the history behind that track - you’ll discover a lot.

Shout is terrible. Michael was right to scrap it. It’s not even his song

 

[threatened2020]

I think going into his 40's he just ran out of steam, he wasn't as creative as he once was, that is not to say he was still not amazing.

I actually like 'TLC', however when you retrospectivly look back, it is out of place on a MJ album. I didn't want to believe it at the time, but 'Invincible' was no where in HIStory's leaque of quality. Some of the songs dragged on, and to this day I can't always be bothered to listen to them as they drag.

 

[MsAshley]

I don't mind. It’s just that objectively, you won’t be able to provide a single decent argument for why TLC is a bad song anyway. We both know that.

Sure, but most people agree the album is good. And it gets more love with every passing year. The album really is great because it has songs that give you a clear reason to think so.

You still don’t get it. Based on your logic, Sony should have spent 60 million. But they only spent 25. They didn't fulfill their obligations. Mottola claiming he did everything he could is a total lie! Even by your own logic, they were obligated to spend another 35 million on promotion.

This isn't just my personal ranking; it’s a ranking I put together based on polls and then tweaked slightly in minor spots. For example, if you swap Cry with Privacy, it doesn’t change much. Personally, I think Cry is better than Privacy, even though I know most people would disagree.

But that’s exactly what I did. I looked at the streaming numbers and critic reviews. Like I told you, I had a solid foundation for making this list.

Batman is more popular than Superman. That’s objective, man. And Spider-Man is more popular than Batman. Also objective, believe it or not.

No, YAML wasn’t even written by Michael. Vocally, it sounds bad. TLC is Michael’s personal song and it’s extremely deep. Read up on the history behind that track - you’ll discover a lot.

Shout is terrible. Michael was right to scrap it. It’s not even his song

1. From a technical standpoint, the song relies heavily on a lullaby structure that lacks harmonic tension. We can say it is objectively childish in that sense. You could extend this by saying the melody is circular and repetitive, providing very little payoff or modulation. The lyrics repeat the central thesis--"Pray for the lost children"--without expanding on the WHY or the HOW in a nuanced way. Compare it to Man in the Mirror or Earth Song. Man in the Mirror (which provides a clear narrative of self-reflection) or Earth Song (which uses grand, apocalyptic imagery), The Lost Children remains static. It is a one-note narrative that doesn't evolve over its five-minute runtime. Similarly, the song lacks a driving rhythmic spine. The 4/4 time signature is handled with a very soft, on-the-beat percussion that provides zero syncopation. I say this for a reason: This creates rhythmic stasis. For an artist like Michael who defined his career through movement and "pocket" (the space between the beats), a song that sits so flatly on the beat can be interpreted as a regression in his creative evolution.

Also, in terms of album cohesion, on Invincible, Michael worked with cutting-edge (well, he made Invincible generic as a result since his handiwork was all over the place, but you get the idea) producers like Rodney to create crisp, futuristic sounds. The Lost Children is sonically divorced from the rest of the album. The inclusion of ambient forest sounds and children’s laughter is a literal (rather than metaphorical) production choice that really solidifies this. It does not work as an antithetical or complimentary ballad either.

All of this to say, The Lost Children is an objectively weak composition because it fails to utilize the complexity, rhythmic innovation, and metaphorical depth that Michael himself established as the gold standard for his work. It is Michael playing it safe, which, like most of Invincible, is a failure of ambition.

2. Yes, I agree the album is good. I would not say it's great because it's bloated with mediocre and terrible tracks. It had the potential to be on par or better than HIStory though.

3. You are correct, I do not understand how you are interpreting my logic lol. And I still don't understand, it seems like a big non-sequitur. Standard high-level contracts (yes, this includes MJ) usually promise reasonable efforts or a mutually agreed-upon marketing plan. They do not include a hard-coded $60 million receipt requirement. Sony’s primary obligation was to manufacture, distribute, and provide a baseline of promotion. Spending $25-30 million--which was still one of the largest promotional budgets in the history of the industry at that time--far exceeds the legal definition of reasonable effort. More to the point, do you know what a larger but comparable budget was? HIStory's, as I've stated thrice now. If an album costs $30 million to make and you spend $60 million to promote it, you are $90 million in the red before the first CD is sold. I cannot be anymore blunt than this. In 2001, a label made roughly $7–$9 per CD sold. To simply BREAK EVEN on a $90 million investment, Sony would have needed to sell over 10 million just to reach $0 profit. No corporation is obligated to commit financial suicide. When Michael refused to tour (the primary way labels recoup those costs via merchandise and ticket surcharges), he effectively voided the business logic for further investment. Interesting you also have no answer to how Sony actually did spend the claimed amount.

By the time Cry was being discussed, the public's appetite for the Invincible era was already wanning. Doubling the budget wouldn't have doubled the interest; it likely would have just doubled Sony's losses. And while Sony and Tommy could've done more on the European market, it would not have been enough to recoup their losses unless Michael toured. As mentioned, 2001 was the year of Napster. Throwing $35 million more into a burning building (a market where people were starting to download music for free) would have been viewed as gross negligence by Sony’s shareholders. If a product is delivered two years late and millions over budget (as Invincible was), the marketing obligations of the partner often shift. Sony could argue that Michael’s own delays and refusal to perform the promotional services (interviews, performances, touring) constituted a breach on his end, which legally and practically justifies freezing the budget. So no, I do not understand what you are talking about when addressing my logic. You are not showing how, just making statements about it. I could do the exact same thing if I also did not know what I was talking about.

4. To claim a ranking is anything even close to objective because of a poll you made up, and then "tweak" that poll based on feelings, is a logical contradiction. If you have to 'tweak' your own data to make it fit your personal taste, you aren't providing a ranking based on research so much as you're just providing a preference masquerading as a consensus. If we are deconstructing the tracklisting, we should be looking at randomized samples and stream numbers. Even like to dislike ratios mean more than this anecdotal date you've pulled out of thin air. It means nothing. You could poll every single user on this forum, and the data would still be insufficient to say anything aside from what people on this forum like. In fact, given the premise, I would say we should be looking at the material conditions of the tracks (the frequency of the syncopation, the complexity of the chord voicings, the narrative subtext), not how many people clicked a button on a forum, to assess their quality (like I did with TLC above).

5. You are entirely missing the point of why I brought up silly superheroes. My point is that you cannot just composite anecdotes in your head and call it game. You do not understand how metrics or statistics work. And you do know that you've just been making population fallacies, right? Which I've been trying to show you aren't even supported, but more to the point: McDonald's sells more units than a Michelin-star steakhouse. Does that make a Big Mac "objectively" better than a prime cut of Wagyu? Popularity measures accessibility and marketing saturation, not quality, complexity, or artistic depth. Citing Spider-Man’s popularity doesn't prove he is a better character; it proves he is easier to sell to a broad demographic.

6. Michael loved You Are My Life enough enough to shelve Shout, or well, put it out as a B-side. He also dedicated it to his children, so no, you're wrong--it was a very personal song to him (even if TLC was also personal enough for him to induce trauma over later). You Are My Life absolutely has a stronger vocal performance as well. The claim that You Are My Life is worse because Michael didn't write it, while TLC is good because he did, is a move away from musicology and into artist worship. Some of Michael’s greatest vocal performances and deepest tracks were written by others (e.g., "Man in the Mirror" by Siedah Garrett/Glen Ballard; "Human Nature" by Steve Porcaro/John Bettis). If 'writing it yourself' made a song objectively better, then Michael's grocery list would be a masterpiece. We have to judge the output, not the effort.

7. Shout is awesome. Only proving my point about taste my guy.

 

[Markus-MJ]

MJ took way too long to make the album. Was delayed multiple times and he had people sitting around wasting studio time without even turning up to record. Hotel rooms booked etc. It seems towards the end of production he had totally lost interest. I'm not surprised that Sony didn't want to spend the amount MJ may have wanted at the end considering delays and money already spent.

He didn't prepare well promo was bad Mj had to be persuaded to play the 30th anniversary concerts

 

[Paul MCC]

1. From a technical standpoint, the song relies heavily on a lullaby structure that lacks harmonic tension. We can say it is objectively childish in that sense. You could extend this by saying the melody is circular and repetitive, providing very little payoff or modulation. The lyrics repeat the central thesis--"Pray for the lost children"--without expanding on the WHY or the HOW in a nuanced way. Compare it to Man in the Mirror or Earth Song. Man in the Mirror (which provides a clear narrative of self-reflection) or Earth Song (which uses grand, apocalyptic imagery), The Lost Children remains static. It is a one-note narrative that doesn't evolve over its five-minute runtime. Similarly, the song lacks a driving rhythmic spine. The 4/4 time signature is handled with a very soft, on-the-beat percussion that provides zero syncopation. I say this for a reason: This creates rhythmic stasis. For an artist like Michael who defined his career through movement and "pocket" (the space between the beats), a song that sits so flatly on the beat can be interpreted as a regression in his creative evolution.

Also, in terms of album cohesion, on Invincible, Michael worked with cutting-edge (well, he made Invincible generic as a result since his handiwork was all over the place, but you get the idea) producers like Rodney to create crisp, futuristic sounds. The Lost Children is sonically divorced from the rest of the album. The inclusion of ambient forest sounds and children’s laughter is a literal (rather than metaphorical) production choice that really solidifies this. It does not work as an antithetical or complimentary ballad either.

All of this to say, The Lost Children is an objectively weak composition because it fails to utilize the complexity, rhythmic innovation, and metaphorical depth that Michael himself established as the gold standard for his work. It is Michael playing it safe, which, like most of Invincible, is a failure of ambition.

2. Yes, I agree the album is good. I would not say it's great because it's bloated with mediocre and terrible tracks. It had the potential to be on par or better than HIStory though.

3. You are correct, I do not understand how you are interpreting my logic lol. And I still don't understand, it seems like a big non-sequitur. Standard high-level contracts (yes, this includes MJ) usually promise reasonable efforts or a mutually agreed-upon marketing plan. They do not include a hard-coded $60 million receipt requirement. Sony’s primary obligation was to manufacture, distribute, and provide a baseline of promotion. Spending $25-30 million--which was still one of the largest promotional budgets in the history of the industry at that time--far exceeds the legal definition of reasonable effort. More to the point, do you know what a larger but comparable budget was? HIStory's, as I've stated thrice now. If an album costs $30 million to make and you spend $60 million to promote it, you are $90 million in the red before the first CD is sold. I cannot be anymore blunt than this. In 2001, a label made roughly $7–$9 per CD sold. To simply BREAK EVEN on a $90 million investment, Sony would have needed to sell over 10 million just to reach $0 profit. No corporation is obligated to commit financial suicide. When Michael refused to tour (the primary way labels recoup those costs via merchandise and ticket surcharges), he effectively voided the business logic for further investment. Interesting you also have no answer to how Sony actually did spend the claimed amount.

By the time Cry was being discussed, the public's appetite for the Invincible era was already wanning. Doubling the budget wouldn't have doubled the interest; it likely would have just doubled Sony's losses. And while Sony and Tommy could've done more on the European market, it would not have been enough to recoup their losses unless Michael toured. As mentioned, 2001 was the year of Napster. Throwing $35 million more into a burning building (a market where people were starting to download music for free) would have been viewed as gross negligence by Sony’s shareholders. If a product is delivered two years late and millions over budget (as Invincible was), the marketing obligations of the partner often shift. Sony could argue that Michael’s own delays and refusal to perform the promotional services (interviews, performances, touring) constituted a breach on his end, which legally and practically justifies freezing the budget. So no, I do not understand what you are talking about when addressing my logic. You are not showing how, just making statements about it. I could do the exact same thing if I also did not know what I was talking about.

4. To claim a ranking is anything even close to objective because of a poll you made up, and then "tweak" that poll based on feelings, is a logical contradiction. If you have to 'tweak' your own data to make it fit your personal taste, you aren't providing a ranking based on research so much as you're just providing a preference masquerading as a consensus. If we are deconstructing the tracklisting, we should be looking at randomized samples and stream numbers. Even like to dislike ratios mean more than this anecdotal date you've pulled out of thin air. It means nothing. You could poll every single user on this forum, and the data would still be insufficient to say anything aside from what people on this forum like. In fact, given the premise, I would say we should be looking at the material conditions of the tracks (the frequency of the syncopation, the complexity of the chord voicings, the narrative subtext), not how many people clicked a button on a forum, to assess their quality (like I did with TLC above).

5. You are entirely missing the point of why I brought up silly superheroes. My point is that you cannot just composite anecdotes in your head and call it game. You do not understand how metrics or statistics work. And you do know that you've just been making population fallacies, right? Which I've been trying to show you aren't even supported, but more to the point: McDonald's sells more units than a Michelin-star steakhouse. Does that make a Big Mac "objectively" better than a prime cut of Wagyu? Popularity measures accessibility and marketing saturation, not quality, complexity, or artistic depth. Citing Spider-Man’s popularity doesn't prove he is a better character; it proves he is easier to sell to a broad demographic.

6. Michael loved You Are My Life enough enough to shelve Shout, or well, put it out as a B-side. He also dedicated it to his children, so no, you're wrong--it was a very personal song to him (even if TLC was also personal enough for him to induce trauma over later). You Are My Life absolutely has a stronger vocal performance as well. The claim that You Are My Life is worse because Michael didn't write it, while TLC is good because he did, is a move away from musicology and into artist worship. Some of Michael’s greatest vocal performances and deepest tracks were written by others (e.g., "Man in the Mirror" by Siedah Garrett/Glen Ballard; "Human Nature" by Steve Porcaro/John Bettis). If 'writing it yourself' made a song objectively better, then Michael's grocery list would be a masterpiece. We have to judge the output, not the effort.

7. Shout is awesome. Only proving my point about taste my guy.

It’s only you who sees it as "childish", by that logic, you could pick apart Heal The World too. It’s an absolutely brain-dead argument with zero justification. Repetitive melodies are part of literally any song, just so you know. In that regard, even Unbreakable is more repetitive. TLC is actually more unique in its structure. The song builds tension and the stakes get higher toward the end. Every time I hear that children's choir with Michael, I get goosebumps - that’s how much it touches people. And I’m definitely not the only one.

It’s stupid to compare it to MITM and ES, which are obviously way better, lol. TLC is maybe the 10th best song on Invincible, whereas those two are top 3 on their respective albums! They’re on completely different levels. But that doesn’t make TLC bad. It’s still a solid track.

TLC isn't "divorced" from the album. By your logic, you could come for Speechless or Whatever Happens too. Those songs aren't futuristic, but they complement the album's concept perfectly. You’re just thinking too narrowly, that’s your problem. The main theme of Invincible isn't futurism, just so you know.

And they did sell more than 10 million copies. As of today, it’s sold nearly 15 million. They would have sold even more if they had given the album proper promotion. They should have been marketing it for two years, but Mottola was too afraid to take the risk. Because he’s devilish.

I’m telling you again: my ranking is justified. You’re unable to disprove it because you’re wrong. All you can do is push your subjective bad taste comments, which is the only thing you’re good at.

YAML wasn't even supposed to be on the album originally. They only threw it in because of 9/11. But Michael literally fought Mottola for TLC, because objectively, TLC is more powerful, better, and much more important to Michael.

Shout is terrible. The most it deserves is to be a B-side for a song that is mediocre itself.

 

[MsAshley]

It’s only you who sees it as "childish", by that logic, you could pick apart Heal The World too. It’s an absolutely brain-dead argument with zero justification. Repetitive melodies are part of literally any song, just so you know. In that regard, even Unbreakable is more repetitive. TLC is actually more unique in its structure. The song builds tension and the stakes get higher toward the end. Every time I hear that children's choir with Michael, I get goosebumps - that’s how much it touches people. And I’m definitely not the only one.

It’s stupid to compare it to MITM and ES, which are obviously way better, lol. TLC is maybe the 10th best song on Invincible, whereas those two are top 3 on their respective albums! They’re on completely different levels. But that doesn’t make TLC bad. It’s still a solid track.

TLC isn't "divorced" from the album. By your logic, you could come for Speechless or Whatever Happens too. Those songs aren't futuristic, but they complement the album's concept perfectly. You’re just thinking too narrowly, that’s your problem. The main theme of Invincible isn't futurism, just so you know.

And they did sell more than 10 million copies. As of today, it’s sold nearly 15 million. They would have sold even more if they had given the album proper promotion. They should have been marketing it for two years, but Mottola was too afraid to take the risk. Because he’s devilish.

I’m telling you again: my ranking is justified. You’re unable to disprove it because you’re wrong. All you can do is push your subjective bad taste comments, which is the only thing you’re good at.

YAML wasn't even supposed to be on the album originally. They only threw it in because of 9/11. But Michael literally fought Mottola for TLC, because objectively, TLC is more powerful, better, and much more important to Michael.

Shout is terrible. The most it deserves is to be a B-side for a song that is mediocre itself.

The irony of calling a structural analysis "subjective bad taste" while using "goosebumps" as a metric for objective quality is a fascinating study in cognitive dissonance. Millions of people get goosebumps from basic pop songs. That doesn't mean those songs possess unique structure. The build-up you mention--adding a choir at the end--is one of the most used tropes in the history of power ballads. It isn't an increase in stakes; it is a formulaic crescendo. It is objectively childish per the metric established in my post. Notice that you cannot actually refute it on musicology grounds? Your argument is basically just "no u".

Also lmao, Unbreakable's production style characterized by dense syncopation. It features a "stuttering" beat where the percussion hits off the main pulse, creating a sophisticated tension that requires the listener (and the vocalist) to navigate a "grid" of sound. The Lost Children is a low-entropy track--how is a straightforward 4/4 folk-lullaby more complex...? But let's keep at it. It features layered vocal harmonies, distorted synth stabs, a posthumous Biggie Smalls verse (integrated into the rhythm), and a mechanical sonic palette. The vocal arrangement alone is highly compartmentalized, with Michael layering dozens of tracks to create a "wall of sound" that feels both industrial and soulful. I listened to The Lost Children again, and it was very monotonous--here's what I got from it: Relies on a very traditional diatonic progression (standard major chords). While it eventually adds a children's choir (yuck), this is a linear stacking of voices rather than a complex counterpoint. The song builds volume, but it doesn't necessarily build complexity in its chord voicing. We can also look at the songs' architectures: Unbreakable represents the cutting edge of 2001 digital production. It uses non-musical found sounds (industrial clicks and pops) as rhythmic elements. This requires a much higher level of engineering and sonic architecture to balance than a traditional ballad. Hmmmmm. How does that compare to TLC again? That song is what... ah yes, a stylistic regression. It sounds like a track that could have been recorded in 1972. Using literal sounds (children laughing, forest noises) is a LINEAR production choice; it tells the story rather than weaving it into the music itself (and it does so poorly. In fact, given the allegations it's incredibly tone deaf and stupid to include it on the album). So, Unbreakable is also 4/4, but highly syncopated, versus the 4/4 lullaby that's linear. The vocals are multilayered and staccato versus the legato/choral on TLC. Harmonic tension is high with dissonant synths all over the place, versus the low resolved major chords on TLC. Unbreakable has experimental textures, TLC is just a lullaby. How you can argue TLC is NOT more repetitive (and thus less complex) makes no sense.

Also if you're getting goosebumps off The Lost Children's children's choir... yikes. That's ****** weird.

Let's compare:

*Whatever Happens: Uses a Santana-led organic groove that blends with the dark, moody production of the rest of the album. It fits the Invincible theme of a man under pressure, fighting against the world.
*The Lost Children: Uses a major-key, folk-lullaby palette that clashes with the aggressive, industrial, and R&B-heavy identity of the record.

So, an album doesn't have to be all futuristic, but it should have a consistent tonal weight. TLC is a tonal outlier--it feels like a track from the Free to Be... You and Me era inserted into a dark, futuristic, industrial 2001 R&B record. Speechless is marginally better--weak, but solid. The Lost Children is not solid.

Heal The World features complex key modulations (shifting from A-major to B-major to D-flat major) that provide a massive sense of harmonic lifting. The Lost Children remains largely static in its harmonic progression. It lacks the elevation that made Michael’s earlier humanitarian anthems work. Even Heal The World is often criticized for being overly sentimental, but it is technically superior in its arrangement.

In 2001, Sony didn't have 25 years to wait. They needed a return on investment within the fiscal year. The 10-13 million is lifetime sales considering streaming and everything else. If they had spent 60 million on promotion + 30 million on production, they would have needed to sell 10 million copies in the first few months just to avoid a loss. Why am I having to repeat myself again and again? Mottola didn't stop because he was "devilish"; he stopped because the lead product (Michael) refused to tour. In the corporate world, if you don't support your product, the company stops paying to advertise it. That's also in addition the myriad of things I already mentioned and don't feel like typing a fourth time.

It's interesting you call Shout 'terrible.' Shout actually fits the industrial, aggressive concept of Invincible much better than TLC does. It features the distorted, rhythmic vocals that defined Michael's 2001 sound (plus a unique rap styled vocals with epic lyrics). You're rejecting the 'new' Michael in favor of a sentimental version of the 'old' Michael, which is exactly the 'narrow thinking' you're accusing me of. You Are My Life has objectively stronger vocals, and if it were so worthless, Michael by the imposed metric, would not have included it given how much control he levied over the tracklistings, and would not have dedicated that song in particular to his children. Not that it matters, but your argument is inane and void of sound reasoning.

Michael deserved to be fought by Sony and Tommy over his terrible tracklisting. Also brilliant rebuttal: "no ur wrong the poll i did in my head is right and u cant refute that!!!" is about as childish as TLC is. You are actually incapable of engaging with any of the arguments presented, yet again.

 

[Hot_Street]

Shout actually fits the industrial, aggressive concept of Invincible much better than TLC does. It features the distorted, rhythmic vocals that defined Michael's 2001 sound (plus a unique rap styled vocals with epic lyrics).

Shout and songs like Xscape and We've Had Enough would have given the world more of the wild, aggressive, and angry Michael they knew from HIStory. The Michael who addressed the problems head-on. That's how it should have been done. You can't just slow down after HIStory.

 

[Paul MCC]

The irony of calling a structural analysis "subjective bad taste" while using "goosebumps" as a metric for objective quality is a fascinating study in cognitive dissonance. Millions of people get goosebumps from basic pop songs. That doesn't mean those songs possess unique structure. The build-up you mention--adding a choir at the end--is one of the most used tropes in the history of power ballads. It isn't an increase in stakes; it is a formulaic crescendo. It is objectively childish per the metric established in my post. Notice that you cannot actually refute it on musicology grounds? Your argument is basically just "no u".

Also lmao, Unbreakable's production style characterized by dense syncopation. It features a "stuttering" beat where the percussion hits off the main pulse, creating a sophisticated tension that requires the listener (and the vocalist) to navigate a "grid" of sound. The Lost Children is a low-entropy track--how is a straightforward 4/4 folk-lullaby more complex...? But let's keep at it. It features layered vocal harmonies, distorted synth stabs, a posthumous Biggie Smalls verse (integrated into the rhythm), and a mechanical sonic palette. The vocal arrangement alone is highly compartmentalized, with Michael layering dozens of tracks to create a "wall of sound" that feels both industrial and soulful. I listened to The Lost Children again, and it was very monotonous--here's what I got from it: Relies on a very traditional diatonic progression (standard major chords). While it eventually adds a children's choir (yuck), this is a linear stacking of voices rather than a complex counterpoint. The song builds volume, but it doesn't necessarily build complexity in its chord voicing. We can also look at the songs' architectures: Unbreakable represents the cutting edge of 2001 digital production. It uses non-musical found sounds (industrial clicks and pops) as rhythmic elements. This requires a much higher level of engineering and sonic architecture to balance than a traditional ballad. Hmmmmm. How does that compare to TLC again? That song is what... ah yes, a stylistic regression. It sounds like a track that could have been recorded in 1972. Using literal sounds (children laughing, forest noises) is a LINEAR production choice; it tells the story rather than weaving it into the music itself (and it does so poorly. In fact, given the allegations it's incredibly tone deaf and stupid to include it on the album). So, Unbreakable is also 4/4, but highly syncopated, versus the 4/4 lullaby that's linear. The vocals are multilayered and staccato versus the legato/choral on TLC. Harmonic tension is high with dissonant synths all over the place, versus the low resolved major chords on TLC. Unbreakable has experimental textures, TLC is just a lullaby. How you can argue TLC is NOT more repetitive (and thus less complex) makes no sense.

Also if you're getting goosebumps off The Lost Children's children's choir... yikes. That's ****** weird.

Let's compare:

*Whatever Happens: Uses a Santana-led organic groove that blends with the dark, moody production of the rest of the album. It fits the Invincible theme of a man under pressure, fighting against the world.
*The Lost Children: Uses a major-key, folk-lullaby palette that clashes with the aggressive, industrial, and R&B-heavy identity of the record.

So, an album doesn't have to be all futuristic, but it should have a consistent tonal weight. TLC is a tonal outlier--it feels like a track from the Free to Be... You and Me era inserted into a dark, futuristic, industrial 2001 R&B record. Speechless is marginally better--weak, but solid. The Lost Children is not solid.

Heal The World features complex key modulations (shifting from A-major to B-major to D-flat major) that provide a massive sense of harmonic lifting. The Lost Children remains largely static in its harmonic progression. It lacks the elevation that made Michael’s earlier humanitarian anthems work. Even Heal The World is often criticized for being overly sentimental, but it is technically superior in its arrangement.

In 2001, Sony didn't have 25 years to wait. They needed a return on investment within the fiscal year. The 10-13 million is lifetime sales considering streaming and everything else. If they had spent 60 million on promotion + 30 million on production, they would have needed to sell 10 million copies in the first few months just to avoid a loss. Why am I having to repeat myself again and again? Mottola didn't stop because he was "devilish"; he stopped because the lead product (Michael) refused to tour. In the corporate world, if you don't support your product, the company stops paying to advertise it. That's also in addition the myriad of things I already mentioned and don't feel like typing a fourth time.

It's interesting you call Shout 'terrible.' Shout actually fits the industrial, aggressive concept of Invincible much better than TLC does. It features the distorted, rhythmic vocals that defined Michael's 2001 sound (plus a unique rap styled vocals with epic lyrics). You're rejecting the 'new' Michael in favor of a sentimental version of the 'old' Michael, which is exactly the 'narrow thinking' you're accusing me of. You Are My Life has objectively stronger vocals, and if it were so worthless, Michael by the imposed metric, would not have included it given how much control he levied over the tracklistings, and would not have dedicated that song in particular to his children. Not that it matters, but your argument is inane and void of sound reasoning.

Michael deserved to be fought by Sony and Tommy over his terrible tracklisting. Also brilliant rebuttal: "no ur wrong the poll i did in my head is right and u cant refute that!!!" is about as childish as TLC is. You are actually incapable of engaging with any of the arguments presented, yet again.

Nobody cares about your tedious "analysis" in the first two paragraphs. You’re ridiculous. People just listen, and if a song clicks with the majority, then it’s objectively good; if most people don’t like it, then the song is bad.

Speechless. Once again: this track isn’t aggressive at all, and it fits the album’s theme perfectly. Just like TLC.

You don't want to listen to me. Fine. You’re only making it worse for yourself, not me, because you’re thinking too narrowly. The Invincible album is much broader than that "aggressive, futuristic image" you’ve made up in your head. Is YRMW aggressive? Or maybe futuristic? No. It’s actually good-natured old school, a return to roots.

Shout and You Are My Life are two low-quality tracks that nobody really likes and never would have. They are literally on the level of D.S.

The poll wasn't imaginary. You just can’t accept the fact that I’m right

Nobody denied that if Michael had gone on tour, it would have helped the album significantly. Even so, they just needed to believe in the album, which Mottola obviously didn't do. Hindsight shows that the songs on this record are actually great, even if some of them have major weak spots (like Shout and YAML).

You didn't understand and still don't understand the concept of the album that Michael wanted to convey - that’s your problem

 

[MsAshley]

Nobody cares about your tedious "analysis" in the first two paragraphs. You’re ridiculous. People just listen, and if a song clicks with the majority, then it’s objectively good; if most people don’t like it, then the song is bad.

Speechless. Once again: this track isn’t aggressive at all, and it fits the album’s theme perfectly. Just like TLC.

You don't want to listen to me. Fine. You’re only making it worse for yourself, not me, because you’re thinking too narrowly. The Invincible album is much broader than that "aggressive, futuristic image" you’ve made up in your head. Is YRMW aggressive? Or maybe futuristic? No. It’s actually good-natured old school, a return to roots.

Shout and You Are My Life are two low-quality tracks that nobody really likes and never would have. They are literally on the level of D.S.

The poll wasn't imaginary. You just can’t accept the fact that I’m right

Nobody denied that if Michael had gone on tour, it would have helped the album significantly. Even so, they just needed to believe in the album, which Mottola obviously didn't do. Hindsight shows that the songs on this record are actually great, even if some of them have major weak spots (like Shout and YAML).

You didn't understand and still don't understand the concept of the album that Michael wanted to convey - that’s your problem

If popularity equals "good," then every viral jingle is a masterpiece. From a researcher's perspective, popularity is a metric of accessibility. The Lost Children is accessible; it uses familiar, comforting nursery-rhyme structures... and still isn't popular LMAO. That makes it (in theory only) "likable" to a broad audience, but it doesn't make the composition complex or innovative. Epic handwaving though. You can just say you don't understand musicology or music theory.

Comparing Shout and You Are My Life to D.S. is interesting because D.S. is actually one of Michael’s most structurally aggressive and correct rock tracks. While you find it low quality, it is objectively the most experimental track of that era. It features a heavy-metal influence and distorted vocal processing that Michael had never used before. You judge these as "bad" because people "don't like them." I judge them based on whether they push the boundaries of Michael's previous work in addition to what they are technically, as well as my personal preferences. Your judgement is just a poll you made up in your head with a "trust me bro" source. You have to be trolling saying something so childish.

Similarly, people do like those songs as evidenced by the fact there are fans that do more with either than The Lost Children in general. But keep making a population fallacy as an argument, I guess.

A broad album has a unifying thread (like the cinematic scope of Dangerous). Invincible lacks this. Switching from the aggressive, industrial syncopation of 2000 Watts to the literal forest sounds of TLC isn't "breadth"--it's tonal whiplash. If a movie shifted from a gritty sci-fi thriller to a Disney-style musical for one scene, we wouldn't call it "broad"; we’d call it an editing failure.

You Rock My World works within the album's scope still, unlike Speechless and The Lost Children. While the instrumental is a throwback to disco-funk, in the verses, Michael isn't singing in a traditional melodic sense; he is using staccato, percussive bursts. His voice acts as a secondary drum kit. This rhythmic aggression--the "gritting" of the teeth in the delivery--mirrors the jagged, high-tension energy of tracks like "Heartbreaker" and "Unbreakable." Even if the music is "warm," the vocal texture is cold and assertive. It fits the "Warrior" archetype of the album. While other tracks are defensive (like Privacy), YRMW is on the offensive. Look at the Drum Programming. The kick drum and snare in YRMW are much "thicker" and more digital than anything on Off the Wall. It has a "21st-century weight" that grounds the disco influence in the hip-hop era. In way, it's a modernization of Quincy, like it serves as the bridge between Michael's legacy and his future. It proves he can take an "old" sound and make it Invincible by infusing it with modern R&B muscle. It also fits instrumentally and thematically with the other Darkchild tracks. Neither Speechless or TLC fit this in any sense, lending to the album's identity crisis. The inclusion of these tracks aids in making it a bloated mess that only takes away from being cohesive.

When Michael refused to tour, he removed the primary mechanism for the label to recoup its $55 million investment. Mottola didn't "stop believing"; he stopped "funding a loss." The label's decision to freeze the budget is the only logical response to a non-cooperative partner. You just don't seem to understand how business works. That is why you have been perpetually unable to engage with any of the arguments I've given you and resort to continual "no u"s.

Crazy work claiming I made up what is clearly well-documented versus the opinion poll you created in your head. There's no way you're this dense. It's literally just a ranking of your emotional attachment to Michael Jackson.

 

[Paul MCC]

If popularity equals "good," then every viral jingle is a masterpiece. From a researcher's perspective, popularity is a metric of accessibility. The Lost Children is accessible; it uses familiar, comforting nursery-rhyme structures... and still isn't popular LMAO. That makes it (in theory only) "likable" to a broad audience, but it doesn't make the composition complex or innovative. Epic handwaving though. You can just say you don't understand musicology or music theory.

Comparing Shout and You Are My Life to D.S. is interesting because D.S. is actually one of Michael’s most structurally aggressive and correct rock tracks. While you find it low quality, it is objectively the most experimental track of that era. It features a heavy-metal influence and distorted vocal processing that Michael had never used before. You judge these as "bad" because people "don't like them." I judge them based on whether they push the boundaries of Michael's previous work in addition to what they are technically, as well as my personal preferences. Your judgement is just a poll you made up in your head with a "trust me bro" source. You have to be trolling saying something so childish.

Similarly, people do like those songs as evidenced by the fact there are fans that do more with either than The Lost Children in general. But keep making a population fallacy as an argument, I guess.

A broad album has a unifying thread (like the cinematic scope of Dangerous). Invincible lacks this. Switching from the aggressive, industrial syncopation of 2000 Watts to the literal forest sounds of TLC isn't "breadth"--it's tonal whiplash. If a movie shifted from a gritty sci-fi thriller to a Disney-style musical for one scene, we wouldn't call it "broad"; we’d call it an editing failure.

You Rock My World works within the album's scope still, unlike Speechless and The Lost Children. While the instrumental is a throwback to disco-funk, in the verses, Michael isn't singing in a traditional melodic sense; he is using staccato, percussive bursts. His voice acts as a secondary drum kit. This rhythmic aggression--the "gritting" of the teeth in the delivery--mirrors the jagged, high-tension energy of tracks like "Heartbreaker" and "Unbreakable." Even if the music is "warm," the vocal texture is cold and assertive. It fits the "Warrior" archetype of the album. While other tracks are defensive (like Privacy), YRMW is on the offensive. Look at the Drum Programming. The kick drum and snare in YRMW are much "thicker" and more digital than anything on Off the Wall. It has a "21st-century weight" that grounds the disco influence in the hip-hop era. In way, it's a modernization of Quincy, like it serves as the bridge between Michael's legacy and his future. It proves he can take an "old" sound and make it Invincible by infusing it with modern R&B muscle. It also fits instrumentally and thematically with the other Darkchild tracks. Neither Speechless or TLC fit this in any sense, lending to the album's identity crisis. The inclusion of these tracks aids in making it a bloated mess that only takes away from being cohesive.

When Michael refused to tour, he removed the primary mechanism for the label to recoup its $55 million investment. Mottola didn't "stop believing"; he stopped "funding a loss." The label's decision to freeze the budget is the only logical response to a non-cooperative partner. You just don't seem to understand how business works. That is why you have been perpetually unable to engage with any of the arguments I've given you and resort to continual "no u"s.

Crazy work claiming I made up what is clearly well-documented versus the opinion poll you created in your head. There's no way you're this dense. It's literally just a ranking of your emotional attachment to Michael Jackson.

I don’t see any point in continuing this pointless argument. It’s not going to lead anywhere.

I’ve done everything I could. I believe I’m right, and you disagree with me. Fine. I couldn't care less. I'm not going to be able to change your mind.

So, I suggest we drop it before we start launching missiles at each other

 

[threatened2020]

Do you think he would have been physically fit for a full on world tour? He looked in great physique, and no where as thin as 'This is it'. I wouldn't have minded if he had mimed the whole tour either, I would love to have seen some onstage interpretations of the 'Invincible' tracks. His stiff upper lip would have taken something away from it though, as it lacked his signature expressions, if that makes sense lol

 

[Paul MCC]

I think the Invincible Tour should have been much less ambitious and complex than History. It could have been something like a mini-tour with a setlist of 10 songs max: 5 old hits and 5 new tracks. Michael was already 43, and he couldn't handle such long performances like he used to.
The setlist could have looked something like this:
Unbreakable / Heartbreaker / Invincible (shortened version of Unbreakable + snippets of Heartbreaker and Invincible)
Break of Dawn
Black or White
Beat It
You Rock My World
Thriller / Threatened
Smooth Criminal
Butterflies
Billie Jean
Man in the Mirror / What More Can I Give

This is a very rough draft. The point is that the setlist should have been short to avoid overworking Michael.

 

[Paul MCC]

Does anyone know the context of this video? It’s obvious someone just layered Shout over this clip. But I’m curious, what song was Michael actually dancing to? I couldn't find the original audio anywhere online.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2041915073606627651

 

[etoile 37]

Does anyone know the context of this video? It’s obvious someone just layered Shout over this clip. But I’m curious, what song was Michael actually dancing to? I couldn't find the original audio anywhere online.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2041915073606627651

Could it be from the new BBC documentary?

 

[etoile 37]

Does anyone know the context of this video? It’s obvious someone just layered Shout over this clip. But I’m curious, what song was Michael actually dancing to? I couldn't find the original audio anywhere online.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2041915073606627651

I just checked and it is indeed from the second episode of the new BBC documentary. The original audio is fans chanting "Sony sucks", no music.