Latest on MJJC

Invincible's tracklist and how it was still a major setback for the album

Lord Jackson

Lord Jackson

Banned
Joined
Sep 22, 2021
Messages
458
Points
43
I'm making this thread because I'd like to point out that one of the main flaws of Invincible wasn't just Sony's (non-existent) marketing, but also the album's tracklist, which for Michael, is flawed:
(I'll only be talking of Michael's solo adult career when doing comparisons)
  • 1 - The number of tracks
out of the 6 main albums, Invincible is the one with the most tracks clocking in at 16 tracks!
The total runtime isn't that long per track if compared with Dangerous, so length here is not a problem.
But 16 tracks for Invincible is still way too many, HIStory already had 15 tracks and that also felt just slightly excessive.
You'd think that's also one of the reasons Blood on the Dance Floor was made, so Michael could release some extra tracks separately.
(Yes, BotDF was made mainly to promote the HIStory tour but that's beside the point).
Michael's most successful album is still Thriller, which was the shortest with only 9 tracks.
Issue number 3 is also related directly with this one.
  • 2 - The order of the tracks
Now I get that Michael really likes to start an Album with a punch, and I have nothing against that, Jam, Scream, Blood on the Dance Floor, all of these tracks open their respective albums really well.
The problem is that Michael really packed too much on Invincible, the tracks are as follows:
Unbreakable --> Heartbreaker --> Invincible
All 3 of these songs are up-tempo, fast, aggressive etc.
Michael never did that on any other album, by at least the 3rd track you had 1 slower/calmer song, Stranger in Moscow, Superfly Sister, In The Closet etc.
This problem also appears a 2nd time (albeit not as bad) with Don't Walk Away --> Cry --> The Lost Children
(But The Lost Children is quite a bit more dynamic)
This is also the only album with HIStory where the title track does not begin/end the album, or is the middle of the album, which I think accentuates the problem when coupled with the one mentioned just before, Invincible (the song) is often forgotten.
There aren't enough juxtapositions in the album, and coupled with the first issue it's understandable that it's not even an easy task to do so.
And sometimes the problem is the opposite, putting one of the most personal/emotional tracks of the album next to a dark "rap" song.
Speechless --> 2000 Watts
Imagine listening to Gone Too Soon and then immediately after listen to Morphine.
  • 3 - choice of tracks
The obvious problem.
Just listening to some of the unfinished demoes (and imagining if they were finished) you can't understand why they weren't picked.
How was Hollywood Tonight not on the album?
How was Shout replaced by You are my Life?
How was We've had enough not selected?

This isn't a debate of personal preferences, any decent manager would realise that some of these tracks work way better (as a "Michael Jackson" track) than some that did make it on the album.

It's baffling really.
 
Nice detailed post

I have generally no clue which songs were left off of Invincible. I think (I like) the way you love me is one of those and it is probably my fave track since 2000 so that should have been picked. I agree with the 3 songs you mentioned.

I have no opinion on the order of the tracks

The number of tracks is a problem for most modern albums, they are almost always too long. I also prefer albums to have 8 to 12 songs max. It is easier to digest and there is less filler. Michael could have released 2 extra albums if he had better balanced trackless. It's one of my main annoyances that he released so few albums since thriller.
 
It was a
filmandmusic said:
I have generally no clue which songs were left off of Invincible.
Click to expand...
Here are songs recorded during the Invincible sessions that were released on future albums:
- I Like The Way You Love Me
- Fall Again
- We’ve Had Enough
- Hollywood Tonight
- Another Day
- A Place With No Name
- Chicago
- Blue Gangsta
- Xscape
 
Nite Line said:
It was a

Here are songs recorded during the Invincible sessions that were released on future albums:
- I Like The Way You Love Me
- Fall Again
- We’ve Had Enough
- Hollywood Tonight
- Another Day
- A Place With No Name
- Chicago
- Blue Gangsta
- Xscape
Click to expand...
thanks nite line
7 of those 9 tracks imo are better than almost anything on Invincible imo.
If I take those 7 tracks and add hearbreaker, butterflies, don’t walk away and unbreakable I have a nice 11 track album.
 
filmandmusic said:
If I take those 7 tracks and add hearbreaker, butterflies, don’t walk away and unbreakable I have a nice 11 track album.
Click to expand...
This is personal opinion here and that's why it's the one I discussed the least in my post

I mean if I was making Invincible for myself, I'd definitely put Beautiful Girl on there, but if I take an objective stance then I'd never even think of putting it on the album as its completely unfinished.
 
I find beautiful girl fantastic but I don’t get the song. It is like there isn’t even any place for verses. He repeats the chorus twice then there is a fantastic musical interlude and then the adlibs start. So what I find most interesting is that it is oddly structured for a pop song

Why did Michael greenlight the inclusion of 2 demo songs on that collection?
 
Michael Jackson's most successful album is still 'Thriller' not just because it was the shortest with only 9 tracks but also because the singer had to work under pressure of time.

When he worked under pressure of time, he generally achieved better results.

The order of the songs on each of his studio album was not always Michael Jackson's decision.

For example, Jimmy Jam arranged the order of the new songs on the 'HIStory' second disc (with the exception of 'Scream', 'Come Together' and 'Smile' because the placement of them was Michael Jackson's decision).

Jimmy Jam also helped a lot his sister Janet Jackson with the order of the songs on her studio albums.

According to many fans, 'Unbreakable', 'Heartbreaker' and 'Invincible' musically sound too similar, so they should not have been placed (on the album) in consecutive order.

A major issue with the 'Invincible' album is this: when you are a pop singer and you want to make an emphatic and powerful comeback, you simply do not fill half of your album with ballads/mid-tempo songs.

Finally, there is an interesting theory that Michael Jackson kept the best songs from the 'Invincible' album sessions for himself (instead of putting them on the 'Invincible' album) in order to release them later on a new album under a different record label (and not under Sony Music).
 
mj_frenzy said:
A major issue with the 'Invincible' album is this: when you are a pop singer and you want to make an emphatic and powerful comeback, you simply do not fill half of your album with ballads/mid-tempo songs
Click to expand...
That's also a good point!
mj_frenzy said:
Finally, there is an interesting theory that Michael Jackson kept the best songs from the 'Invincible' album sessions for himself (instead of putting them on the 'Invincible' album) in order to release them later on a new album under a different record label (and not under Sony Music).
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't he have released them post 2005 though? Especially after a trial like that he could have made a really big comeback (and avoid This Is It which was too big of a comeback).
It also doesn't explain why he made the Bahrain tracks.
 
I've never bought into the theory Mike intentionally left the best songs off of Invincible.
He was too much of a perfectionist and cared too much about his legacy to not release his best material

I think it was more likely his judgement was clouded by executives, who weren't satisfied with his 98-99 album (reportedly), hence why most of it was scrapped and he started working extensively with Darkchild during 99-01, trying to get a new innovative sound.

The direction was wrong with Invincible, Mike should have stuck with Dr Freeze, Teddy, Prince/Buxer and bring Rodney in for a few tracks. Be Michael Jackson, the superstar everybody has been chasing since 1982.
 
@SmoothCriminal1995 Is there any info on what songs were presented to the executives during 98/99?

I personally think someone tried to change MJ with invincible, it didn't sound like the real MJ, maybe it was an attempt at reinventing himself but it failed. From what I heard most tracks that didn't make the tracklist are almost all better but that is subjective of course.
 
Last edited:
@Lord Szechenyi, apparently the reason (for not releasing them post-2005) is because Michael Jackson was still unable to find a big record label that would sustain his big comeback (in terms of manufacture, promotion, marketing, distribution, etc).

His new album (under Bahrain-based Two Seas Records start-up record label) was supposed to include not just few new songs recorded in Bahrain but also some of his best outtakes from the 'Invincible' album.

But Two Seas Records proved to be rather insufficient for such a feat.

When the singer parted ways with Two Seas Records (in 2006), he then formed the Michael Jackson Company in order to help him release his new album.

The Michael Jackson Company was again insufficient for his big comeback.
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
I've never bought into the theory Mike intentionally left the best songs off of Invincible.
He was too much of a perfectionist and cared too much about his legacy to not release his best material

I think it was more likely his judgement was clouded by executives, who weren't satisfied with his 98-99 album (reportedly), hence why most of it was scrapped and he started working extensively with Darkchild during 99-01, trying to get a new innovative sound.

The direction was wrong with Invincible, Mike should have stuck with Dr Freeze, Teddy, Prince/Buxer and bring Rodney in for a few tracks. Be Michael Jackson, the superstar everybody has been chasing since 1982.
Click to expand...
This !!!Michael Jackson was good as he was before 2000,nobody needed so much Rodney on Invincible...Rodney is still amazing tho
 
Personally, I think adding Rodney's touches to the album didn't help it in the long run. I think he's extremely overrated. Most of the best tracks from this era were left off the album.

Michael telling Sony he wasn't renewing his contract with them also didn't help either...thus killed the promotion of the album very quickly. The choices for singles were also effected by this. Michael wanted Unbreakable 1st, Sony overruled him and choose You Rock My World. Releasing Cry as a single I think was a good move..especially with what happened with the 9/11 tragedy, but they could have easily piggy backed it with What More Can I Give, which Sony also killed off.

No video or promtion for Butterflies & Whatever Happens...2 of the best tracks on the album are also mind numbing. I'm still amazed at how well Butterflies did on the charts with no promotion.
 
Personally speaking, I don’t get the hatred for the ballads on Invincible. For me, they are some of the highlight of the album. I love You Are My Life. I love Don’t Walk Away. I also don’t get the hype for Shout.

I get the complaint about the length but Michael released albums every 4-5 years. Invincible was his first in six years so I am glad it had 16 songs. Imagine releasing 8-9 songs on your first album in years.

The biggest issue for Invincible is the track order. It becomes a chore to listen to the album only during the third song, because the album starts with three similar song that has a rap feature.

Also the title track is a very mediocre song. Michael’s worst title track by a mile. The title track has to stand out as one of the best songs on the album and Invincible (song) stands out as one of the worst.

I will make the following changes to Invincible:
Replace Invincible with Xscape.
Replace Cry with We’ve Had Enough.
Replace The Lost Children with Fall Again.
Replace 2000 Watts with Hollywood Tonight.

I like The Lost Children and 2000 Watts, but they can be B-sides on singles.

And I will also make the changes to the track list.
 
filmandmusic said:
@SmoothCriminal1995 Is there any info on what songs were presented to the executives during 98/99?

I personally think someone tried to change MJ with invincible, it didn't sound like the real MJ, maybe it was an attempt at reinventing himself but it failed. From what I heard most tracks that didn't make the tracklist are almost all better but that is subjective of course.
Click to expand...
I don't unfortunately, I'm not even sure how true it is. I just read somewhere Mike presented the studio with a version of the album in 98/99 and they were underwhelmed so he went back to the drawing board and began working on new songs

I know Cory Rooney mentioned being in the room when Break Of Dawn was first played to Tommy Mottola and he was blown away by it

I wish Invincible would have sounded more like YRMW, Break Of Dawn, Whatever Happens and Xscape. Also I miss Michael's own backgrounds on Invincible
 
Most of the songs would have been much better if they were stripped down. The fast pace songs are overproduced. The lack of real instrumentation is a glaring problem. It’s sad that this was his last album. Hopefully one day they will release some post Invincible tracks that shows MJ still had it. The posthumous unreleased songs so far pretty much follows the same path on overproduction. Like it or not, let’s be honest, Timbaland was a disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssj
mj_frenzy said:
A major issue with the 'Invincible' album is this: when you are a pop singer and you want to make an emphatic and powerful comeback, you simply do not fill half of your album with ballads/mid-tempo songs.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, how do you explain the popularity of acts like Celine Dion, Adele, Kenny G, Barbra Streisand, Lionel Richie, or even Whitney Houston who are more known for ballads? In the 1980s a lot of rock bands had bigger hits with power ballads than their uptempo stuff like REO Speedwagon & Chicago.
 
Lord Szechenyi said:
The answer is in your own question.
Click to expand...
In the US the biggest hit from HIStory was You Are Not Alone. Butterflies was a big R&B hit. Ballads have always been popular in the US. There are even radio formats for it like adult contemporary, easy listening, smooth jazz, & adult R&B. There is also the radio program "Quiet Storm" named after a Smokey Robinson song.
 
It are all ifs and buts, if the material isn’t strong enough then success will be minimal. Reviews were poor, sales were poor and to this day fans are debating the worth of the album. This says enough, it is a poor final album
 
The time had changed, I see it as Michael trying to reinvent himself for the new generation. There could not have been another Thriller
 
filmandmusic said:
It are all ifs and buts, if the material isn’t strong enough then success will be minimal. Reviews were poor, sales were poor and to this day fans are debating the worth of the album. This says enough, it is a poor final album
Click to expand...
Music critics don't buy records, and they often don't like what is popular or sells a lot. Sales or popularity generally don't mean anything other than something got a big promotional budget. Unless you think Justin Bieber or Daddy Yankee make better music than B.B. King. Drake, Lil Wayne, & Nicki Minaj have more Hot 100 hits than anyone else including The Beatles & Michael Jackson. Top 40 radio has always been more driven by female listeners/buyers. That's how Elvis Presley became a movie star. He was good looking, so young women & teen girls liked him. They didn't care about the plot of the movies, they went to see them anyway because it was Elvis and he sang some songs. Same for all of those screaming girls at Beatles concerts. There's a lot of albums that were extremely popular when they came out, but the music music aren't usually talking about them today (MC Hammer, New Kids On The Block, Vanilla Ice, Paula Abdul, Limp Bizkit, etc). They continue to write about boomer rock bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, & Rolling Stones.
 
Lord Szechenyi said:
according to wikipedia
"Since then [2001], the album has sold more than 8 million units worldwide"
I wouldn't call that poor
Click to expand...
That is mostly a grossly exaggerated figure. The album left almost all charts in 6 weeks time. Debuting high and then dropping like a stone week after week. Compare that with the longevity of HIStory which charted for give or take 100 weeks in the biggest markets.
I know many fans hide after a figure of 8 million but that is quite simply fantasy cause certifications are based on shipments not sales.

The first single was a moderate success because of hype and promotion but it is now mainly a forgotten song in his catalogue. The second single was a huge flop. Compare that to his other albums who had up to 7 singles and even the later released singles of an album often still reached top 10 positions all over the world.

Michael set the bar high with his former albums and he didn’t even come close to jump over it with Invincible
 
Hudson112 said:
But by Michael Jackson standards, it can arguably be considered poor.
Click to expand...
Well, it was lucky that the album came out before Napster and MP3s really hit. The average popular artist today is lucky to go gold (500,000 US) in physical sales. Only Adele, Taylor Swift, & maybe Bruno Mars get any significant physical sales today for individual albums. Just about everybody else has streaming popularity. Video game discs sell way more than CDs, vinyl, & tapes do now.
 
I get more enjoyment out of demos like Beautiful Girl and Days In Gloucestershire (I know it was recorded in 2004) then some of the ballads on Invincible.

I think it's down to the writing and production of them, I know I said it earlier but I miss those rich MJ backgrounds on Invincible. Take something like Beautiful Girl, completely unfinished, barely any words to it but I go back and listen often because those layered harmonies are so pure and rich it makes me want to listen over and over like Liberian Girl does
 
Some of the songs on the album don't ''feel'' like Michael Jackson songs to me. I know that he was doing something different, but he's done something different with every album before that, but they still ''felt'' like Michael Jackson songs to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top