Invincible appreciation thread

Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I think Invincible is great, like i've said before I feel that some of the outtakes would have been a better fit than others on the album. One thing I have never understood is how anyone in their right mind could consider Invincible a flop.. Invincible has sold 13 million units to date, It was also Michael's fastest selling album ever. If any other artist put out an album and it sold 13 million units, it would be viewed as a HUGE phenomenal success, for example, when Usher's album "Confessions" sold 10 million, people viewed it as a huge blockbuster success.. But when Michael Jackson sells 13 Million records for an album with one single and very little promotion it's viewed as a "failure"? In what world does that even remotely make sense..
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I think Invincible is great, like i've said before I feel that some of the outtakes would have been a better fit than others on the album. One thing I have never understood is how anyone in their right mind could consider Invincible a flop.. Invincible has sold 13 million units to date, It was also Michael's fastest selling album ever. If any other artist put out an album and it sold 13 million units, it would be viewed as a HUGE phenomenal success, for example, when Usher's album "Confessions" sold 10 million, people viewed it as a huge blockbuster success.. But when Michael Jackson sells 13 Million records for an album with one single and very little promotion it's viewed as a "failure"? In what world does that even remotely make sense..

In a world where your previous albums have sold anything from 25 to 50 million :)

But I fully agree.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Great songs, but its the production that ruins it for me. This album sounds like everything else that came out in 2001, which was I think a low point in music. I still love the album but its not a sound that I can identify with.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I think Invincible is great, like i've said before I feel that some of the outtakes would have been a better fit than others on the album. One thing I have never understood is how anyone in their right mind could consider Invincible a flop.. Invincible has sold 13 million units to date, It was also Michael's fastest selling album ever. If any other artist put out an album and it sold 13 million units, it would be viewed as a HUGE phenomenal success, for example, when Usher's album "Confessions" sold 10 million, people viewed it as a huge blockbuster success.. But when Michael Jackson sells 13 Million records for an album with one single and very little promotion it's viewed as a "failure"? In what world does that even remotely make sense..

Also when Invincible came out lots of illegal music download sites like Napster were big at the time. Lots of people were probably downloading the album for free at the time. That probably put in a dent in Invincible's sales
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

So what is everyone's favorite and least favorite track from the album? My favorite is probably Speechless. It's definitely hard to pick a favorite though. Least favorite is Cry.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Great songs, but its the production that ruins it for me. This album sounds like everything else that came out in 2001, which was I think a low point in music. I still love the album but its not a sound that I can identify with.

Please tell me one song from that time period that sounds like Heartbreaker. Or Unbreakable. Or Invincible. The production and sounds on those 3 songs alone sound nothing like anything else that came out in 2001! It sounds more like something from 2011. Some songs on that album sound 10 years ahead of their time.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

So what is everyone's favorite and least favorite track from the album? My favorite is probably Speechless. It's definitely hard to pick a favorite though. Least favorite is Cry.

Favourite: You Rock My World
Least favourite: Privacy

Second favourite: Speechless
Second least favourite: Cry
 
So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

So what is everyone's favorite and least favorite track from the album? My favorite is probably Speechless. It's definitely hard to pick a favorite though. Least favorite is Cry.

Fav : threatened (sick beat, awesome lyrics - this would have been a sure hit)

Least fav: you are my life (was not that big of a fan of baby face and the lyrics are super duper corny. Like all babyface songs there's kinda this lazy/lounge style that I just never got into - just lacks passion to me no matter how you sing it and MJ sung it very well. That said, I see how others would love the song.)

Also I have to say to those that thought the album sounded too much like the music of the times - this is not new generally. First half of the album had a futuristic sound that was trendy , but MJ has always put unique flare to it. Most of the album switched styles tho between each song so you can't really say the whole album was that way.

History was extremely personal so there were naturally less "pop" efforts made. But you still had stuff like this time around and 2bad that borrowed the hip hop/gangsta rap style that was becoming popular.

Dangerous sounds like the new jack swing era of the time for a good few songs. Why you wanna trip, she's driving me wild, can't let her get away.

Bad sounds quintessentially 80s to me with the popular styles and use of synthesizers at the time. Bad, just good friends, another part of me.

Same with off the wall having a disco feel.

But like MJ said- good music is good music no matter what style label you put on it. Invincible had the same trends of his other albums- MJ always borrowed from trends of the times.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Borrowing from current trends isn't always a good thing, because sometimes current trends suck.
 
So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Borrowing from current trends isn't always a good thing, because sometimes current trends suck.

In your opinion - but many people appreciate the songs in which he sounds up to date - hence my mention of the new generation of fans who "grew up" with invincible. That type of music spoke to them the most - the same way the new jack swing style of dangerous speaks to me more than thriller ever did (no matter how praised thriller was). That's why MJ has such a big audience and is so versatile.

Also I don't think MJ would have went with ANY trend if HE thought it sucked. MJ does what he does because he likes it - if he borrows something, it's not always because everyone else is doing it but because it's something that speaks to HIM. So if he includes a trend, it's a pretty safe bet that he would disagree with the concept that said trend "sucks." :p
 
Last edited:
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I don't give a crap if a song sounds ''up to date'' or not. All I care about is whether or not the song sounds good.
 
So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Well again that's your opinion which is fine- but for many , especially young people - they DO care if it's up to date AND that it sounds good. In fact, a song sounding good to them often relies on the fact that it doesn't sound like something their parents listen to lol MJ catered to that demographic sometimes (not just with invincible). It's how you stay in the pop music game really. MJ successfully balanced both lines - Making good music and making it current.

Edit: Also I realized even thriller had songs that catered to the times: baby be mine and lady in my life.

MJ was always about great melodies no matter what the style. And even if I don't like all the songs on invincible I can't deny that every single song on the album has that (in my opinion). That's what MJ wanted to put out with that one.
 
Last edited:
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I think Invincible is great, like i've said before I feel that some of the outtakes would have been a better fit than others on the album. One thing I have never understood is how anyone in their right mind could consider Invincible a flop.. Invincible has sold 13 million units to date, It was also Michael's fastest selling album ever. If any other artist put out an album and it sold 13 million units, it would be viewed as a HUGE phenomenal success, for example, when Usher's album "Confessions" sold 10 million, people viewed it as a huge blockbuster success.. But when Michael Jackson sells 13 Million records for an album with one single and very little promotion it's viewed as a "failure"? In what world does that even remotely make sense..

This is interesting because I wonder what is going on with Adele's next album.
She brought out her "Thriller" meaning her album 21, and I wonder what the critics are going to say if her next album doesn't sell 40 million like her 21 album. Does she receive the same reception than MJ with lesser sold albums than Thriller or is she still praised?
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

^^ Wow Adele's album sold 40 million copies? That is truly an impressive feat to pull off in the stagnant state of the retail music industry.

The only true problem i ever had with vince was the pacing. Switch some songs around, (okay maybe replace some songs with some outtakes) and you have a coherent, fluid killer album.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

^^ Wow Adele's album sold 40 million copies?

No, she did not. Nowhere near 40 million. She sold 26 million according to mediatraffic.

According to Wikipedia she sold 21,3 million (certified) or 30 million (claimed sales).
 
Michael Jackson's 'Invincible'

By ROBERT HILBURN,
LOS ANGELES TIMES STAFF WRITER

October 28, 2001

Ever since the unprecedented success of 1982's "Thriller," Michael Jackson has tried to find magic and symbolism in one-word album titles. There was "Bad," then "Dangerous" and even "HIStory." So it's not surprising that he turns to the formula once again with his first collection of new material in six years, which is due in stores Tuesday.

The title can be seen as a statement to those who have questioned the self-proclaimed King of Pop's creative and commercial standing during all the image-bruising, tabloid scrutiny he's undergone since "Thriller."

But the music itself is anything but invincible.

Jackson has enlisted enough co-writers to fill a city bus, but they haven't helped him recapture the vitality and command that made the highlights of his work with Quincy Jones on "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" seem so urgent.

There are some inspired moments in the 77-minute collection, but there are also stretches that are sappy, derivative and labored. The excesses show what happens when you have an unlimited budget, no time constraints and an uncertain vision.

Rodney Jerkins, the young producer who has served up hits for Whitney Houston and Jennifer Lopez with the ease of a flapjack cook, helps Jackson get off to a winning start. His rhythm track on "Unbreakable" is so striking that savvy stereo retailers could use it to demonstrate the wonders of their latest sound systems.

"Heartbreaker" and the title song are also sonic marvels that lead us to think Jackson has thrown away some of the security blankets he's held onto since "Thriller," and moved into daring new territory. His singing is sassy, defiant and forceful. If "Invincible" had continued on this dynamic path, the album might have been a 31/2-star project.

But any chance of that rating evaporates the moment you hear "Break of Dawn." In that song and others, Jackson rests his comeback on his least convincing persona: lover boy.

"Break of Dawn," a love song with the breathless, quivering vocal that has become an annoying Jackson trademark, and "Heaven Can Wait," a tale about turning away an angel who comes to take him to heaven because he wants to stay with his darling, seem aimed at the lower end of 'N Sync's fan base--a difficult stretch for a man of 43.

Other songs that also deal with puppy love are as woefully generic as their titles. The one about romantic jitters is called "Butterflies." The one about being tongued-tied by love is titled "Speechless."

In the midst of this emotional abyss, Jackson connects marvelously with co-producer Teddy Riley on "2000 Watts," a celebration of dance music's therapeutic powers that should be a club anthem for months.

But the remaining tracks revisit familiar territory with varying effectiveness. "You Rock My World" is old-school Jackson, and "Privacy" is yet another slap at prying media eyes. R. Kelly's "Cry" fills the social commentary role of "Man in the Mirror."

"The Lost Children," one of only two songs that Jackson wrote on his own, is an ultra-sensitive expression of concern about young people in need, but the good intentions are sabotaged by a heavy-handed arrangement.

So how did Jackson get from the command of "Thriller" to the uncertainty of "Invincible"?

In "Off the Wall" and "Thriller," Jackson proved both an inspiring artist and a crafty hit-maker. But he seems to have become so absorbed by the hit-making side that selling records became more important than the artistry. He most certainly wanted to make the best records he could, but he also seemed to tailor the music to fit demographics and trends.

Facing enormous, self-imposed pressure each time he steps into the studio, Jackson has gotten further and further from the innocence and joy that gave the early work such power and appeal.

The question is whether it's even possible for him to regain that focus.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/la-archive-invincible-review-oct28-story.html
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

What a douchebag!
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

What in the literal hell even is that review? In what world is "Butterflies" or "Speechless" considered generic? LOL. Seriously, most critics are so absorbed in themselves and their biased opinions that I think they don't even listen to the music. Michael was so interested in hits that it ruined his artistry since Thriller? I want to bang my head against the wall when I read things like that... I guess songs like Will You Be There, Stranger in Moscow, Childhood, the Lost Children, Speechless, HIStory, Little Susie, etc are made from the intent of hit-making lol. First of all, he says he's missing the light hearted energy of Off the Wall and Thriller; meanwhile, most of Invincible is more in the vein of these albums than not. On one hand, he says Unbreakable, Heartbreaker and Invincible are so amazing and great because he's affirmative and strong and the beats are heavy, then he says the album sucks because of the "generic, happy" songs THEN says he needs to go back to light-hearted music! LOL!!! Pick an opinion! Which one is it? What do people want from him, I literally don't get it.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

In your opinion - but many people appreciate the songs in which he sounds up to date - hence my mention of the new generation of fans who "grew up" with invincible. That type of music spoke to them the most - the same way the new jack swing style of dangerous speaks to me more than thriller ever did (no matter how praised thriller was). That's why MJ has such a big audience and is so versatile.

Also I don't think MJ would have went with ANY trend if HE thought it sucked. MJ does what he does because he likes it - if he borrows something, it's not always because everyone else is doing it but because it's something that speaks to HIM. So if he includes a trend, it's a pretty safe bet that he would disagree with the concept that said trend "sucks." :p
That is the exact reason I get irritated when people denounce people who love all the albums from "Off the Wall" through "Bad" (and I'll throw Destiny and Triumph in that) as 'casual fans'. I may have turned my back a little on current "pop" music with the advent of New Jack Swing-but I never once thought that Michael was pandering to the "young record buying public." He honestly seemed to like ALL music-



He explained it himself best when he gave the interview talking about great melodies-but the current instrumentation changes-comparing the electric guitars of the 60's to the synthesizers, etc of the 80's.

I went from loving the Big Bands and jazz and the old torch songs my parents played to dancing my legs off to the disco versions of a lot of those songs. Melody is everything. That's why his music is timeless.
 
Last edited:
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

What in the literal hell even is that review? In what world is "Butterflies" or "Speechless" considered generic? LOL. Seriously, most critics are so absorbed in themselves and their biased opinions that I think they don't even listen to the music. Michael was so interested in hits that it ruined his artistry since Thriller? I want to bang my head against the wall when I read things like that... I guess songs like Will You Be There, Stranger in Moscow, Childhood, the Lost Children, Speechless, HIStory, Little Susie, etc are made from the intent of hit-making lol. First of all, he says he's missing the light hearted energy of Off the Wall and Thriller; meanwhile, most of Invincible is more in the vein of these albums than not. On one hand, he says Unbreakable, Heartbreaker and Invincible are so amazing and great because he's affirmative and strong and the beats are heavy, then he says the album sucks because of the "generic, happy" songs THEN says he needs to go back to light-hearted music! LOL!!! Pick an opinion! Which one is it? What do people want from him, I literally don't get it.

Just read this review by Hilburn-I expect way more of him than this, especially since he seemed to really "get Michael" when he started ghost writing his autobiography.
And personally, as I said above, maybe I didn't like the "new" sounds, but I expected better of critics that are supposed to know music-I just know I like what I like-and Michael still had songs I adore on the albums after Bad.

(Love, love, love "Butterflies".)
 
Invincible dents Jackson's crown

mikey1123.jpg


By BBC News Online's Ian Youngs

Michael Jackson has become more of a celebrity oddity than a serious artist over the last 10 years and has not released a proper album since 1991.

Mention Michael Jackson's music, and most people will hark back to Billie Jean or Thriller, not more recent offerings like Blood on the Dance Floor or You Are Not Alone.

After many well-publicised personal traumas, and many years since his peak, how could he possibly come back with an album befitting a man they used to call the king of pop?

The answer is - he could not. It all seems so obvious now.

But before Invincible was unveiled, there was always a chance, a slim hope, that the man would pull it out of the bag.

Almost everybody who has ever danced to Rock With You secretly wanted some more ground-breaking, mind-blowing tunes that would re-align the musical planets.

It had been rumoured that Invincible cost $30m (£21m) to make, and Jackson enlisted a string of writers and producers to help make it modern, fresh and popular.

Unfortunately, the result is ruined by an over-inflated ego, a fragile grip on reality, too many cooks and expectations that were far too high.

About half the album is produced by R&B wunderkid Rodney Jerkins, who stamps his crunching urban beats and bleeps onto Jackson's frameworks.

The end products sometimes turn out funky, with hooks that get under the skin, but they sometimes sound as though Jerkins has smothered the songs in a vain attempt to make them interesting.

That is the good half.

Several of the other songs are schmaltzy, cheesy ballads of the worst degree, making Earth Song or We Are the World sound tasteful.

Those that are written and produced solely by Jackson are the worst offenders, and reveal his very hazy view of the outside world.

Even if he could change the world and have a perfect, sickeningly happy relationship, that does not mean we want to hear him sing about it and hear sound effects of children playing in the background.

There are a few worthwhile tracks that buck the trends - but their quality seems to be down to other peoples' contributions.

Carlos Santana, seen here playing in Switzerland, contributes to Michael Jackson's track, Whatever Happens
Santana's guitar licks are a refreshing change
The best song on the album is the soaring Cry, written and produced by R Kelly.

Heaven Can Wait is a light R&B ballad made with Teddy Riley, with a female chorus that carries the song on a gust of warm air, but which varies too little and becomes boring.

And Carlos Santana's latin guitar licks on Whatever Happens are a smooth, refreshing change - even if Jackson's spoken, cringe-worthy "Thank you, Carlos" at the end ruins it all.

But throughout the album, there is one thing glaringly missing - the tunes.

Some people wondered why he released such a weak tune as You Rock My World as the first single - but the truth is that it is one of the strongest tracks on here.

Everyone compares his work to what he has come up with before, which is grossly unfair because the standards are so high.

But if Michael Jackson still wants to be the King of Pop, we need tracks with the killer punch - not just songs that are destined only to hang around in the top 10 for a couple of weeks.

And there are no killer punches on Invincible.

Invincible is released by Epic records on 29 October. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1621277.stm
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I never pay attention to critics, they always hate what I love and love what I hate.

Back in 1982 Thriller got 3 stars in the Rolling Stones or something like that, it was only 25 years later that the critics re-reviewed it and gave it the 5 of 5 stars rate. It's funny to see Thriller with 3 stars and Thriller 25 with 5.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

What's up with all those old reviews? Why posting them now? We all know what was happening at the time.

I bet half of those critics never even listened to the album or they wrote their articles before even listening to it. They had an agenda to destroy the album and to destroy MJ - everything MJ sucks (even We Are The World apparently!) after he bought The Beatles (their favourite but hugely overrated white band). Nothing new.
 
So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

That is the exact reason I get irritated when people denounce people who love all the albums from "Off the Wall" through "Bad" (and I'll throw Destiny and Triumph in that) as 'casual fans'. I may have turned my back a little on current "pop" music with the advent of New Jack Swing-but I never once thought that Michael was pandering to the "young record buying public." He honestly seemed to like ALL music-



He explained it himself best when he gave the interview talking about great melodies-but the current instrumentation changes-comparing the electric guitars of the 60's to the synthesizers, etc of the 80's.

I went from loving the Big Bands and jazz and the old torch songs my parents played to dancing my legs off to the disco versions of a lot of those songs. Melody is everything. That's why his music is timeless.

Oh yeah I agree - there is the danger with generalizations. Not all fans who like those albums are casual but I think the fans who say that lump ACTUAL fans together with those who just say they only like him during the "thriller days before he got weird." Because it's around the time of dangerous where public opinion (incorrectly) agrees MJ failed musically - but that's only because of the media crap.

Also I never listened to critics and never will lol. Especially when it comes to MJ - they flow with the wind of what gets them more readers.

I'm on my phone so I can't post it now but I DO remember a couple of positive reviews at the time. If we're going to fish for reviews why not balance it with those?
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Invincible dents Jackson's crown


By BBC News Online's Ian Youngs

Michael Jackson has become more of a celebrity oddity than a serious artist over the last 10 years and has not released a proper album since 1991.

I remember this review at the time, and in retrospect some of it in accurate in my opinion, but the most annoying thing about it is the line above.

Just because History came with a CD of Greatest Hits does not make it an "un-proper" album. It had 15 brand new tracks on it (okay you could argue 14!), but 15 tracks is one and a half Bads! It's not like when someone brings out a Hits album and tacks a couple of new tracks to it to entice existing fans to buy. History was a full piece of work.

I really hate the fact that they thought they needed old material on there to increase sales or tempt new interest.

Anyway, in terms of the question of people's favourite & least favourite on Invincible, for me it's probably:

Favourites:
Threatened
Whatever Happens
Butterflies

Least:
Don't Walk Away
Privacy
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I'm just going to say it:

The Lost Children is MJ's worst song......ever..

I cringe when I hear it...
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I love The Lost Children. The melody and vocals are beautiful and I love the harmonizing during the last chorus. Break of Dawn is up there with some of my favorite MJ tracks.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

I never pay attention to critics, they always hate what I love and love what I hate.

Back in 1982 Thriller got 3 stars in the Rolling Stones or something like that, it was only 25 years later that the critics re-reviewed it and gave it the 5 of 5 stars rate. It's funny to see Thriller with 3 stars and Thriller 25 with 5.

Rolling Stone gave Dangerous 2 stars
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Expectations and standards always rise damn high when it's an album from the KOP.

If it was any other contemporary pop singer's work, I'm sure it would have been critically acclaimed.

The thing is that they kept comparing MJ's latest work with.. MJ's past work - instead of focusing on the album at hand. It had a different vibe from his other albums which I really liked. It had more smooth and mellow songs that we were used to. Maybe critics got disappointed with that, expecting a greater amount of up-beat tracks.

I love Invincible and most of its tracks. I've been used to MJ albums where every song was a banger, without a single track to skip. I can't say it was the case for me here. Most of them were really beautiful, but there are a few (really a minority) that I wouldn't miss if they don't make the cut on whatever next silly compilation that greedy Sony has in mind.

I still genuinely adore this album even if I consider some tracks weaker (again, they're truly a minority anyway). The up-beat tracks make me wanna dance while the smoother songs have that ability to calm me down whenever I'm stressed out.

In no way did it deserve to be bashed in such a way. If you remember though, every single time a new MJ album came out after Thriller, tabloids always said he had lost 'it'. Yes, right after Thriller, when Bad came out, that's what they said. Can you believe it, considering what a masterpiece Bad is? Again, same thing happened every time a new album got released. Oh and then people say he had lost 'it' when they saw "This is it". MJ always saved his voice and energy during rehearsals. In the DWT rehearsals you hear him sing in a falsetto voice when it's meant to be a loud energetic mix. I think 'This is it' made him look really bad because it was not a representation of what he was capable of then. A lot of people looked at it thinking the performances probably were close to what he'd do during the shows, when true MJ fans know damn well it couldn't be further from the truth. Sorry if I got a bit carried away with this paragraph.

On a final note about Invincible, MJ didn't want to do this album initially but Sony pressured him. For that reason he might not have been as involved or thrilled with this project. You can't force the creative process. But even with that in mind, the end result still was great and deserves way more credit than it's been given, IMO.
 
Re: So, Invincible is much better than everybody thought....

Oh and then people say he had lost 'it' when they saw "This is it". MJ always saved his voice and energy during rehearsals.

I'm not doubting there are idiots like that out there, but in all honesty I feel I've seen a lot of praise for MJ in TII. People do actually realise he was 50 now and only rehearsing...

Most people still think This Is It wasn't dubbed over and that MJ was going to sing live. I don't blame them, I thought that myself until a few months ago.
 
Back
Top