Latest on MJJC

Re-Doing The Invincible Era

Michaels Lover said:
My thoughts is, why do we need so many threads about the invincible album?
Click to expand...

LOL. I guess the idea is to discuss topics that are important to some people, considering this is a forum and discussion is what we do on forums.
 
PopOfKing said:
First let me say as a MJ fan I like and want all the tracks possible and do like every released track (not including the bogus Cascio abominations) on MJ BUT everytime I listen to "Invincible" my mind drifts to a "what might have been" scenario. The project was a missed and/or botched opportunity even without the record company problems IMO

This is how I think it should have gone. I think the album was too long, was sequenced-wrongly for an MJ album and promoted woefully.

Firstly of the 16 tracks I decided to cut 5 tracks. Why?

1. Heaven Can Wait- It's great but too similar to "Break Of Dawn" so save this for the next album
2. 2000 Watts- Too different for MJ and the general public
3. Privacy- Just doesn't fit. Would've fit with the "History"/"BOTDF" material
4. You Are My Life- Too similar to "Speechless"
5. Don't Walk Away- Too similar in feel to "Speechless", "Break Of Dawn" and "Whatever Happens"

The tracklist:

1. Unbreakable
2. Invincible
3. You Rock My World
4. Butterflies
5. Cry
6. Heartbreaker
7. Break Of Dawn
8. Whatever Happens
9. Threatened
10. Speechless
11. The Lost Children

Singles in order:

1. You Rock My World
2. Unbreakable
3. Butterflies
4. Cry
5. Break Of Dawn

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...


The length of the album has long been a complaint, from some people....to the point that it's quite a cliche, nowadays, in my view.

Personally, I think that more MJ is always going to be better than less. If everyone had known that Invincible was going to be his last living studio album, I would hope that maybe, just maybe....it would have been received much differently, right from the out-set.

Instead of reducing Invincible, I would have liked to see it as a double album, actually, much like HIStory - I would have had some of the songs from BOTDF re-issued on the second CD, together with some of the out-takes, which I think should have been finished (by Michael) and released in 2001. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't leave some songs off the project, though. I certainly would, but not necessarily the same ones that have been suggested above, by others.

So here's my proposal, in this specific order (I have dreamed/thought about this often):

CD One

Unbreakable
Invincible
You Rock My World
Break of Dawn
Butterflies
Don't Walk Away
You Are My Life
Whatever Happens
Threatened
Cry

CD Two

2000 Watts
Blood on the Dance Floor
Ghosts
Is It Scary
2 Bad
Another Day
Fall Again
Speechless
The Way You Love Me
We've Had Enough

Singles in this order:

You Rock My World
Whatever Happens
Another Day
The Way You Love Me
We've Had Enough
 
*Comes into thread about to say something then reconsiders after reading the first 2 pages*
You know what, f*** it, I'm just gon watch shit go down this time.:lol:
giphy.gif
 
Johan said:
First rename the album to Unbreakable and change the album cover.

1. Unbreakable
2. Another Day
3. Hollywood Tonight
4. Break of Dawn
5. Butterflies
6. You Rock My World
7. Whatever Happens
8. Speechless
9. Beautiful Girl
10. Threatened

This album has caused a lot of discussion. However, i have accepted it for what it is now. It has some great songs, however there is no good flow, too many songs on it, too many similar songs. The way i have arranged the album, there is a better flow and a good balance between ballads and uptempo songs.
Click to expand...

Y'all cheating by adding non-album tracks. LOL. By the way it still pisses me off that "Hollywood Tonight" wasn't a huge hit. Maybe if it had been the first single? Because by the time they got around to it the Cascio controversy and ruined the whole era.
 
PopOfKing said:
Y'all cheating by adding non-album tracks. LOL. By the way it still pisses me off that "Hollywood Tonight" wasn't a huge hit. Maybe if it had been the first single? Because by the time they got around to it the Cascio controversy and ruined the whole era.
Click to expand...

Wasnt it the second single? HMH was the first single as that was Michael's wishes (discovered on a note by the Estate) so I don't think Hollywood Tonight would've been the first single. I wish it was, that's a really great song.

Makes me wonder how big it would've been had Michael lived on and released it himself.
 
Leave the album as is, its what MJ created and how he wanted it.

It always makes me laugh when people say Invincible is too long when its the same running time as Dangerous.

The promotion is what damaged Invincible, it left a horrible taste in the mouth of fans, had this been done correctly i think we may be thinking differently of it, not all of us of course, but more of us.

I still think its vocally his best album, whether musically or artistically is a different matter. But his vocals were unmatched on that IMO
 
the length of the album was not one of it's problems.. it was right on track to the MJ's pattern when it comes to length of time and # of tracks per album.
 
Dangerous1991 said:
It always makes me laugh when people say Invincible is too long when its the same running time as Dangerous.
Click to expand...

That's not what we mean. You're correct, Invincible is literally the same running length approximately as both Dangerous AND HIStory. However, the other albums and their songs feel better paced.
Like I can watch The Wolf of Wall Street and have the three hours whiz by because it's such a well-built, great paced film, but then I can be watching The Hobbit (which is only 10 minutes less) and be checking my phone every once in a while, bored and ready to move on because it's pacing just isn't as good, it drags on for longer than it needs to. They're almost the same length (10 minutes difference) but The Wolf of Wall Street flows so much better than The Hobbit does.


It's a similar concept with Dangerous vs. Invincible. Sure, they're a similar same length technically, but the songs on Dangerous flow much better imo, nor do they 'feel' as long to me whereas Invincible does feel dragged out after a while. There are songs on Invincible where I feel "okay I'm kinda done with this, I'm happy with it's length now" and then I look at the time and there's still another 2 minutes to go. Never really get that on Michael's other albums. Sometimes less is better. Quality > Quantity, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top