Rethinking Invincible

[AlwaysThere]

I do not doubt the existence of your source(s). But, it looks like all those stories about the ‘Invincible’ sessions (including also the ones in that book) try to depict MJ as a totally uninterested/addled/disoriented artist who lacked a clear vision (about that album) & was hugely manipulated by his company during those sessions. Personally, I find it really hard to believe those stories that try to portray the ‘Invincible’ sessions in such a negative light.

Besides, when Sony top executives got an exclusive preview several months before the album’s official release (Manhattan, June 2001), they got elated by the songs that MJ played for them. Shortly afterwards, it was revealed that the track list of that preview was almost identical to the official one.

None of these anecdotes have come from anyone devoutly affiliated with Sony though; they're all sourced from engineers and musicians and songwriters and producers, several of whom had worked with Michael previously. Bill Bottrell's recollection of the 1997 sessions, for example, came from the man who had produced/co-written a number of the best songs on Dangerous. It's doubtful that he has any reason to stretch the truth, particularly in the overall-positive light he paints Michael in. Same goes for Brad Gilderman and Stuart Brawley, among others.

It seems as though fans are very unwilling to accept that Michael had always been inconsiderate in various ways with his music. There are dozens of instances of Michael taking credit for work other people did, sneaking out of a studio session and not reappearing for days on end, so on and so forth.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this prior, but I believe it was Brad Gilderman who outlined several studio sessions that would consist of Michael recording a single verse or chorus, then spending several hours on end either watching television, reading, or talking with friends, leaving the producers/engineers/musicians to polish what he had put together without his involvement. It's not difficult to believe in my opinion.

Anyway, it's to my understanding that the June 2001 submissions were almost entirely different from the ones that past November. Recall when Rodney Jerkins said that, at a certain point, Michael suddenly decided to start from scratch and rejected the vast majority of what he had already recorded, aside from a few songs ("You Rock My World," "Cry," "Speechless" among them).

 

[mj_frenzy]

None of these anecdotes have come from anyone devoutly affiliated with Sony though; they're all sourced from engineers and musicians and songwriters and producers, several of whom had worked with Michael previously.

Anyway, it's to my understanding that the June 2001 submissions were almost entirely different from the ones that past November. Recall when Rodney Jerkins said that, at a certain point, Michael suddenly decided to start from scratch and rejected the vast majority of what he had already recorded, aside from a few songs ("You Rock My World," "Cry," "Speechless" among them).

There are also other, clear examples (from that period) that did take place & run counter to your claim about Sony’s (continually) dismissive attitude towards MJ during the ‘Invincible’ sessions.

For instance, another preview took place several weeks after November (2000). Sony executives got the chance in January (2001) to hear segments of three songs (in fact, nearly one minute from each song). After hearing what MJ presented to them, they became overjoyed again. They described what they heard as “… basically a new awesome sound…” while they particularly commented on the production of one of these songs (“… so slick, so smooth, so clean…&#8221. They also described ‘Cry' (the title was not revealed at that time) as a “…highway, very big hit…”.

Another example (from that period) comes from Tommy Mottola himself who described that album (few months before its release) as an album that “...contains some of Michael Jackson’s finest work to date,,,” & continued by saying that “… he [MJ] has created a fresh body of music that is destined to take its place alongside the greatest recordings in pop history…”. He emphatically also pinpointed that “… music lovers around the world will be surprised and delighted by the power, depth, and [its] range… “.

All these examples (including the ones that I mentioned earlier) clearly show that Sony did not reject MJ’s work at every turn (while the album was still being made).

It seems as though fans are very unwilling to accept that Michael had always been inconsiderate in various ways with his music.

That is not the case, at least with me.

But we should not be so greatly unfair towards MJ either.

 

[AlwaysThere]

There are also other, clear examples (from that period) that did take place & run counter to your claim about Sony’s (continually) dismissive attitude towards MJ during the ‘Invincible’ sessions.

For instance, another preview took place several weeks after November (2000). Sony executives got the chance in January (2001) to hear segments of three songs (in fact, nearly one minute from each song). After hearing what MJ presented to them, they became overjoyed again. They described what they heard as “… basically a new awesome sound…” while they particularly commented on the production of one of these songs (“… so slick, so smooth, so clean…&#8221. They also described ‘Cry' (the title was not revealed at that time) as a “…highway, very big hit…”.

Another example (from that period) comes from Tommy Mottola himself who described that album (few months before its release) as an album that “...contains some of Michael Jackson’s finest work to date,,,” & continued by saying that “… he [MJ] has created a fresh body of music that is destined to take its place alongside the greatest recordings in pop history…”. He emphatically also pinpointed that “… music lovers around the world will be surprised and delighted by the power, depth, and [its] range… “.

All these examples (including the ones that I mentioned earlier) clearly show that Sony did not reject MJ’s work at every turn (while the album was still being made).

Once again, the songs presented in November 2000 were almost entirely different than those submitted afterwards. Someone with a fair degree of knowledge had mentioned one of the rejected titles being "Stop the War," though I can't make claim as to the authenticity of that.

The only three songs presented to Sony heads prior to 2000 that had received any degree of praise were "Break of Dawn," "Speechless" and "Cry," all of which were given to Tommy Mottolla throughout 1999 (save for BOD, which was previewed for a group of execs and producers in February 1999). Such a positive stance resulted in Michael submitting six tracks in November 2000, none of which saw such warm reception. The timeline is hardly impractical or difficult to believe, particularly when put in context.

Only one example you've given has related to the rumored November 2000 submission, which was from a highly unreliable source. Everything else runs afterwards, at a time when Michael had already scrapped some 90% of the recorded material and started from scratch.

Perhaps I misspoke, but I never claimed that Sony rejected Michael's music at every turn; I said they showed him contempt, particularly after he made it known that he was leaving the label after the Invincible promotional campaign ended.

But we should not be so greatly unfair towards MJ either.

It isn't being greatly unfair; it's being highly realistic.

There are several verified occasions of Michael refusing to acknowledge various collaborators and taking all credit for himself. Greg Phillinganes, for example, probably should have received cowriters credit on "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" (which Michael even hinted at in his '93 deposition), and Brad Buxer undoubtedly should have been recognized for being the mastermind behind "Stranger in Moscow". Likewise, there are plenty of instances in which Michael left a song to be finished by the given producers and musicians and proceeded to take full credit for what had been cut together.

Let's also not forget the fact that Michael is credited as a cowriter on "Whatever Happens" despite not changing a single word of the song. Or that he attempted to take cowriters credit for "You Are Not Alone" before R. Kelly stepped in. Or that he flat out refused to give Jerry Hey cowriters credit for composing certain sections of "Speed Demon".

There's no way to justify or explain it. Michael was greedy and irresponsible.

 

[barbee0715]

It seems as though fans are very unwilling to accept that Michael had always been inconsiderate in various ways with his music. There are dozens of instances of Michael taking credit for work other people did, sneaking out of a studio session and not reappearing for days on end, so on and so forth.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this prior, but I believe it was Brad Gilderman who outlined several studio sessions that would consist of Michael recording a single verse or chorus, then spending several hours on end either watching television, reading, or talking

Always?? Even the OTW, Thriller, BAD days? What part did Greg write on DSTYGE? Or are you talking about arrangements? Was Greg's part on the released home demo? And I never heard anything about Jerry Hey co-writing altho he was instrumental in the horn arrangements. Is this all in the Smallcombe book?

I find it odd how different Michael comes off during the History and especially the Invincible sessions. The 2 things Quincy and Bruce both praised him to the skies for were 1)his emotive voice and making you feel a song, and 2)how cognizant he was of the expense of studio time. Get in and get out-don't waste a second. Prepare at home and knock it out.

This is so different. It makes it seem like he didn't care about the album or songs at all and maybe he didn't. Maybe it was the probs with Sony but it seems like he wasn't interested in making music at that time.

If he owed them an album or two, I wish he had just gone with some cover albums of the old music he loved and admired. The classic jazz standards like Linda Ronstadt did or Rod Stewart and Smokey did later.
It seems like Invincible was forced on him and was a miserable experience.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Always?? What part did Greg write on DSTYGE? Or are you talking about arrangements? Was Greg's part on the released home demo? And I never heard anything about Jerry Hey co-writing altho he was instrumental in the horn arrangements. Is this all in the Smallcombe book?

I find it odd how different Michael comes off during the History and especially the Invincible sessions. The 2 things Quincy and Bruce both praised him to the skies for were 1)his emotive voice and making you feel a song, and 2)how cognizant he was of the expense of studio time. Get in and get out-don't waste a second. Prepare at home and knock it out.

Greg Phillinganes wrote the bridge section of "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" but was only given an arranger's credit. Michael acknowledges this in the Mexico deposition where he acknowledges that Greg "created" the bridge.

The Invincible sessions were largely different from anything before them. Michael seemed to lack interest in writing and creating music. Much of the work was passed on to third parties, Michael wasn't a commanding presence in the studio as much as before, and it was overall a far more open and unfocused project. There wouldn't be any sort of genuine immersiveness in new music until 2006.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

I really need to read more of Making Michael lol.

 

[barbee0715]

Greg Phillinganes wrote the bridge section of "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" but was only given an arranger's credit. Michael acknowledges this in the Mexico deposition where he acknowledges that Greg "created" the bridge.

The Invincible sessions were largely different from anything before them. Michael seemed to lack interest in writing and creating music. Much of the work was passed on to third parties, Michael wasn't a commanding presence in the studio as much as before, and it was overall a far more open and unfocused project. There wouldn't be any sort of genuine immersiveness in new music until 2006.

I've listened to the Mexico depo a lot and guess just assumed it was the arrangement, not the melody.
But back to Invincible it's obvious there wasn't real interest at that time or it wouldn't have drug on like that. With previous albums or most of his life music was pouring out of his brain. Why did he even do it. He just had to?

Except for Butterflies, which I adore, and about 3 other songs, I don't think Invincible is especially good and I think now this might be the reason.

 

[HIStoric]

If he owed them an album or two, I wish he had just gone with some cover albums of the old music he loved and admired. The classic jazz standards like Linda Ronstadt did or Rod Stewart and Smokey did later.

Perhaps the contract required albums of original material?

 

[barbee0715]

Perhaps the contract required albums of original material?

Good point. Does anybody know?

 

[mj_frenzy]

Only one example you've given has related to the rumored November 2000 submission, which was from a highly unreliable source. Everything else runs afterwards, at a time when Michael had already scrapped some 90% of the recorded material and started from scratch.

The information regarding all those previews was widely available in the past, & not necessarily coming only from one source.

It isn't being greatly unfair; it's being highly realistic.

There's no way to justify or explain it. Michael was greedy and irresponsible.

The way certain stuff is described on a book, especially with a title that implies MJ was merely a product of other people’s efforts, is open to debate.

It makes it seem like he didn't care about the album or songs at all and maybe he didn't. Maybe it was the probs with Sony but it seems like he wasn't interested in making music at that time.

MJ was greatly interested in creating new music/sounds during that period. For example, the way the dubstep technique was incorporated into some of the songs of that album was unprecedented at that time (‘Heartbreaker’, for example).

Perhaps the contract required albums of original material?

Good point. Does anybody know?

By that time (2001, prior to 'Invincible' release), MJ had already released four out of the six albums that the 1991 contract required (‘Dangerous’, ‘HIStory’, ‘Blood On The Dance Floor’, ‘HIStory: Greatest Hits&#8217. ‘Invincible’ was one of the two, new albums that he had to deliver in the following five years (until 2006).

But, things took a complicated turn from the release of ‘Invincible’ onwards because of their disputes. The pending new album in the end took a hybrid form by becoming a compilation album filled with other stuff as well.

 

[dmehta]

While all MJ's albums from Dangerous onwards had multiple producers and collaborators, I think Invincible took it a bit too far. MJ is at his best when he is the chief songwriter and has a few collaborators. The best examples of this in my opinion are Bad and Dangerous. On both albums MJ wrote most of the material, or had a strong hand in the writing process and composition.

On Invincible the number of writers and different producers made it sound like the least MJ album he had ever released. It lacked the consistency of his past albums.

Having said that, Invincible is underrated and was too quickly written off by critics as there are some very good songs on there. But it is still the first and only MJ album where there are songs I actually dislike.

 

[KOPV]

My opinion - I think Michael let the pressure get to him too much with Invincible and too many voices in his ears!! I believe it was a time where he questioned how relevant he could be and producers took that for a ride..

 

[HIStoric]

By that time (2001, prior to 'Invincible' release), MJ had already released four out of the six albums that the 1991 contract required (‘Dangerous’, ‘HIStory’, ‘Blood On The Dance Floor’, ‘HIStory: Greatest Hits&#8217. ‘Invincible’ was one of the two, new albums that he had to deliver in the following five years (until 2006).

But, things took a complicated turn from the release of ‘Invincible’ onwards because of their disputes. The pending new album in the end took a hybrid form by becoming a compilation album filled with other stuff as well.

Yeah, and if there was a requirement for new original material, those unreleased songs/demos would've fulfilled his end of the bargain.

Did the 2001 Special Editions come under this contract or anything? Does anyone know if there was a reason why they were re-released?

 

[thiron]

In actuality, label executives didn't care for anything he submitted in late November 2000 and pushed the release date a third or fourth time from March 2001 to the summer, demanding Michael return to the studio and come up with better material. Michael, in turn, was so embarrassed that he stopped attending studio sessions entirely between late December 2000 and March 2001, at which point he finally manned up, scrapped much of what had already been recorded, and finished the album (though the release date was again pushed to October because the final masters weren't submitted until June 12, 2001).

A similar situation happened in 1995 when Michael presented the finished History album to a room full of executives, all of whom listened in silence and walked out without a word when it was finished.

"

If thats true, I wonder which songs Michael first presented to Sony. By now we have heard quite a lot Invincible outtakes and in my opinion some of those are really good, some even better than tracks on the Album.
So if Michael submitted, for example, demos of Hollywood Tonight, Escape, Weve had Enough, Blue Gangsta, Beautiful Girl, Fall Again, She Was Loving Me etc, then I can understand MJ being upset about Sony. Having worked for months, even years on some songs and then being told that most of them werent good enough to be released must really hurt.
And I dont understand Sony, as those are strong tracks in my opinion (as they were on History, where Sony supposedly wasnt amused either).

 

[AlwaysThere]

The information regarding all those previews was widely available in the past, & not necessarily coming only from one source.

The information regarding the initial November 2000 preview was from Michael himself, and there is no reason why we should take his word as law. Do you really believe that he would come forward and say, "They hated the music"?

The way certain stuff is described on a book, especially with a title that implies MJ was merely a product of other people’s efforts, is open to debate.

You're interpreting my comments as me claiming that Michael had no hand in anything he ever did. This simply is not the truth.

He was clearly a very engaged and enthusiastic participator in the creation of his music, but there were undoubtedly circumstances in which he took credit when credit was not his to take (e.g., "Stranger in Moscow," "Whatever Happens").

There is no debate. It's a simple fact.

 

[mj_frenzy]

The information regarding the initial November 2000 preview was from Michael himself, and there is no reason why we should take his word as law. Do you really believe that he would come forward and say, "They hated the music"?

Being so greatly in disbelief towards MJ (regarding certain cases, like the November preview) when, at the same time, you take other people’s words (that appear on a particular book) as law, looks to me ironic.

You're interpreting my comments as me claiming that Michael had no hand in anything he ever did. This simply is not the truth.

He was clearly a very engaged and enthusiastic participator in the creation of his music, but there were undoubtedly circumstances in which he took credit when credit was not his to take (e.g., "Stranger in Moscow," "Whatever Happens").

There is no debate. It's a simple fact.

Or that he attempted to take cowriters credit for "You Are Not Alone" before R. Kelly stepped in.

Regarding ‘Stranger In Moscow’, I see a a huge difference between your claims (that “Brad Buxer undoubtedly should have been recognized for being the mastermind behind ‘Stranger in Moscow’”, or, that “MJ took credit when credit was not his to take&#8221 & what Brad Buxer himself acknowledged when he was asked about it:

“... Michael and I had made the following arrangements for the game [Sonic the Hedgehog 3], and it has served as the basis for ‘Stranger In Moscow’…” (B&W Magazine, French Edition, 2009)

Concerning ‘You Are Not Alone’, MJ did have a melodic contribution to the final segment of the song, (by adding some, new melodic elements). This is a case (in music) that co-writers credits can be allotted, too.

 

[analogue]

I don't think songwriting credits are always 100% honest. Not just with MJ, but with most bands/artists. This has been mentioned before, but when Prince wrote the song ''Kiss'' he wrote it on an accoustic guitar, and it was his band members who took that and made it into the song people know today. And people feel that they should have gotten co-credit for that song, but they didn't.

And with bands, sometimes only one band member is credit as being the only songwriter for a song, when in reality it's usually a band effort.

 

[KOPV]

^ You're right many artists (for example) would do a minimal change to a song to get the credit (acknowledgement and financial gain) to a song.. Like an artist can have someone write a song, the artist was either in the writing session and/or change one sentence and get writing credit.

"Written by Ed Sheeran and Justin Bieber"


It's very common In music.. Goes the same with every aspect of music, directing, producing etc.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Being so greatly in disbelief towards MJ (regarding certain cases, like the November preview) when, at the same time, you take other people’s words (that appear on a particular book) as law, looks to me ironic.

Are you not committing the same crime? It boggles the mind that you've used the comments of others in this very thread as ammunition for your argument, and then proceed to criticize me for doing the same simply because it comes from a different source.

It surprises me even more than you attempt to paint Michael as an indisputably credible source. Keep in mind that this is the very same man who publicly accused Tommy Mottolla of racism after the Invincible campaign was canceled, a claim so unfounded and rooted in anger that a number of Michael's confidants (including Al Sharpton) turned their backs on him.

I don't see how much further this conversation can go with you seemingly blind to Michael's obvious flaws.

Regarding ‘Stranger In Moscow’, I see a a huge difference between your claims (that “Brad Buxer undoubtedly should have been recognized for being the mastermind behind ‘Stranger in Moscow’”, or, that “MJ took credit when credit was not his to take&#8221 & what Brad Buxer himself acknowledged when he was asked about it:

“... Michael and I had made the following arrangements for the game [Sonic the Hedgehog 3], and it has served as the basis for ‘Stranger In Moscow’…” (B&W Magazine, French Edition, 2009)

Concerning ‘You Are Not Alone’, MJ did have a melodic contribution to the final segment of the song, (by adding some, new melodic elements). This is a case (in music) that co-writers credits can be allotted, too.

Brad Buxer completed the greater part of "Stranger in Moscow" -- specifically the beat boxing programming, drums, piano and strings -- and drafted a rough instrumental before Michael even stepped foot in the recording studio in March 1994. Before that, Michael chose the chords and melody based on ad-libbed piano playing from Buxer. Quote from Buxer: "That song, more than anything I've ever done with him, is a true collaboration to say the least. It is absolutely my most important contribution to him. Of course I'm disappointed that I didn't receive a songwriting credit on it, but Michael chose not to credit me. There's nothing I can do about it.

This was corroborated by Buxer himself. I would acknowledge the source, but I'm sure you will attempt to devalue it somehow, despite the fact that it is direct information from the man himself and is certainly as credible, if not more, than anything you've referenced.

As far as "You Are Not Alone" is concerned, Michael did nothing outside of reproducing the track and suggesting a choir for the final portion (again, sources exist, but they will not be taken as credible, so what's the point?). That is by no means worthy of a cowriters credit.

Besides, even if Michael did "have a melodic contribution" to the song (which you never specified exactly what he contributed), he certainly shouldn't be given credit if Brad Buxer can create the entire foundation of "Stranger in Moscow" and get stiffed.

 

[KOPV]

We will get into a sticky area if we get into MJ taking credit (or not giving credit appropriately) for stuff others have done on every aspect of the creative process..

 

[mj_frenzy]

Are you not committing the same crime? It boggles the mind that you've used the comments of others in this very thread as ammunition for your argument, and then proceed to criticize me for doing the same simply because it comes from a different source.

It surprises me even more than you attempt to paint Michael as an indisputably credible source. Keep in mind that this is the very same man who publicly accused Tommy Mottolla of racism after the Invincible campaign was canceled, a claim so unfounded and rooted in anger that a number of Michael's confidants (including Al Sharpton) turned their backs on him.

I don't see how much further this conversation can go with you seemingly blind to Michael's obvious flaws.

The musicians (who were involved in the writing/production of the 2000 November submitted tracks) were R. Jerkins, T. Riley & R. Kelly. The names of these three artists appear also on the official track list of that album, which gives even more credence to MJ’s statement at that time (about Sony being satisfied with those tracks).

Brad Buxer completed the greater part of "Stranger in Moscow" -- specifically the beat boxing programming, drums, piano and strings -- and drafted a rough instrumental before Michael even stepped foot in the recording studio in March 1994. Before that, Michael chose the chords and melody based on ad-libbed piano playing from Buxer. Quote from Buxer: "That song, more than anything I've ever done with him, is a true collaboration to say the least. It is absolutely my most important contribution to him. Of course I'm disappointed that I didn't receive a songwriting credit on it, but Michael chose not to credit me. There's nothing I can do about it.

This was corroborated by Buxer himself. I would acknowledge the source, but I'm sure you will attempt to devalue it somehow, despite the fact that it is direct information from the man himself and is certainly as credible, if not more, than anything you've referenced.

Even in the case of Brad Buxer being co-credited, this obviously does not equate to your claim (that “MJ took credit when credit was not his to take&#8221, neither does it mean that MJ did not credit him out of greediness (as you keep implying all the time), especially if we take into account Buxer’s comments about MJ being “always very generous” to him.

As far as "You Are Not Alone" is concerned, Michael did nothing outside of reproducing the track and suggesting a choir for the final portion (again, sources exist, but they will not be taken as credible, so what's the point?). That is by no means worthy of a cowriters credit.

Besides, even if Michael did "have a melodic contribution" to the song (which you never specified exactly what he contributed), he certainly shouldn't be given credit if Brad Buxer can create the entire foundation of "Stranger in Moscow" and get stiffed.

Finally, as regards ‘You Are Not Alone’, MJ made improvements to the melodic structure of the song (by adding, for example, a final choir that gave the song a more dramatic feeling). Like I said, this does not preclude co-writers credits from being given.

But, I am afraid that I am starting to get off-topic.

 

[HIStoric]

Not gonna lie, been watching this debate between you two the past few days and it's quite interesting.

 

[analogue]

For Who Is It, Brad Buxer said that MJ came to him with his beatbox for the song, and MJ asked him to play chords for it, and after Brad messed around a little bit and finally played the chords Michael liked, Michael said ''That's it'' (Same thing happened with Will You Be There).

What I got from that is that MJ didn't tell Brad what chords to play, Brad just played them by himself. So, should Brad have gotten co-credit for Who Is It and Will You Be There?

Songwriting credits are a tricky thing

 

[AlwaysThere]

The musicians (who were involved in the writing/production of the 2000 November submitted tracks) were R. Jerkins, T. Riley & R. Kelly. The names of these three artists appear also on the official track list of that album, which gives even more credence to MJ’s statement at that time (about Sony being satisfied with those tracks).

Some of this information is news to me. The tracks submitted in November 2000 were never individually named and, should rumors be held to any high standard, featured a number of self-produced titles, one of which is said to have been "Stop the War". But in the event that what you say is correct, how can you be firm that the November submissions included any tracks that wound up on the final album?

There are at least eight unpublished Jerkins tracks, the four Riley collaborations were recorded over a period of just over two weeks in April/May 2001 (not kidding) at Future Studios, and the only two R. Kelly songs recorded were "One More Chance" and "Cry". Odds are your information is incorrect.

Even in the case of Brad Buxer being co-credited, this obviously does not equate to your claim (that “MJ took credit when credit was not his to take&#8221, neither does it mean that MJ did not credit him out of greediness (as you keep implying all the time), especially if we take into account Buxer’s comments about MJ being “always very generous” to him.

Buxer maintaining an overall graciousness and respect towards Michael does not mean that he cannot express occasions in which Michael was less-than-courteous. Michael certainly took undue credit for "Stranger in Moscow" by allowing himself to be solely credited for songwriting and production, both of which Buxer had a substantial hand in. Is it greediness? Not necessarily. But Michael was certainly in the wrong by allowing such false credits to go through (which was not the first time he had done so and certainly wasn't the last).

Finally, as regards ‘You Are Not Alone’, MJ made improvements to the melodic structure of the song (by adding, for example, a final choir that gave the song a more dramatic feeling). Like I said, this does not preclude co-writers credits from being given.

Suggesting a choir for the final portion of the song does not qualify as "improving the melodic structure" and is far more appropriate to be classified under arrangement. If the addition of a gospel choir to a track were to demand a cowriters credit, Andrae Crouch would certainly be credited for "Man in the Mirror," "Will You Be There," "Morphine," "Keep the Faith," and a plethora of other songs.

What ultimately happened is that Michael attempted to take credit for something he did not do and only consented to remove his name when Kelly complained. This conclusion is far from unrealistic because, once again, this is a recurring theme with Michael.

For Who Is It, Brad Buxer said that MJ came to him with his beatbox for the song, and MJ asked him to play chords for it, and after Brad messed around a little bit and finally played the chords Michael liked, Michael said ''That's it'' (Same thing happened with Will You Be There).

What I got from that is that MJ didn't tell Brad what chords to play, Brad just played them by himself. So, should Brad have gotten co-credit for Who Is It and Will You Be There?

Songwriting credits are a tricky thing

If Buxer came up with a chord progression that worked and Michael took it and ran, then Buxer definitely should be given cowriters credit for it. Unless Michael specifically told him what notes to play, as he did with guitarist Jeff Mironov for "Much Too Soon," the person who came up with them should be credited.

 

[KOPV]

Michael has often not given credit to where he's gotten stuff.. From where he got the moonwalk to exaggerating his involvement on a few projects.. He's also played his fair share in PR comments to make himself appear a certain way, from saying he did not rehears when he did (make it seem it all came in the moment) to saying that he just wrote someone a check for 500 million dollars to make his financial standing seem more impressive than it was at the time.

He's in the entertainment industry and we all know very well that he was taught how to manipulate the public perception from the beginning stages with Motown and the story on how they were discovered and his age..

He innately was an honest person, and when he did lie it was pretty damn obvious because it wasn't natural...

 

[Daryll748]

Well, I certainly have enjoyed this discussion so far! I even learnt a lot of new 'insights' I didn't knew before!
Thanks to everyone for making this such an 'interesting' and 'constructive' read

I agree, It's tough to always 'credit' people. I mean as Author, I'm always 'inspired' by other people but that doesn't mean I need to 'credit' everyone that inspires me hey!

So, I'm sure MJ only had 'best intentions' when he credited people or not. Indeed, Business makes you do stuff you never intend to to but somehow it happens lol.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Some of this information is news to me. The tracks submitted in November 2000 were never individually named and, should rumors be held to any high standard, featured a number of self-produced titles, one of which is said to have been "Stop the War". But in the event that what you say is correct, how can you be firm that the November submissions included any tracks that wound up on the final album?

I cannot understand why you are asking that.

Given your bias against MJ, even if he revealed (at that time) names of certain November submitted tracks (that eventually made the album), you still would not have believed him.

There are at least eight unpublished Jerkins tracks, the four Riley collaborations were recorded over a period of just over two weeks in April/May 2001 (not kidding) at Future Studios, and the only two R. Kelly songs recorded were "One More Chance" and "Cry". Odds are your information is incorrect.

You sound confused. It took them two weeks to build the studio, not to record the tracks:

“Mike and me started the Invincible album in New York. That’s when Michael built this studio for me on the top floor of a building. He had Criteria Studios build me a studio in a penthouse in two weeks. I kid you not. I went home and Michael was like, ‘Go home…the studio will be built in two weeks.” (Teddy Riley)

Suggesting a choir for the final portion of the song does not qualify as "improving the melodic structure" and is far more appropriate to be classified under arrangement. If the addition of a gospel choir to a track were to demand a cowriters credit, Andrae Crouch would certainly be credited for "Man in the Mirror," "Will You Be There," "Morphine," "Keep the Faith," and a plethora of other songs.

What ultimately happened is that Michael attempted to take credit for something he did not do and only consented to remove his name when Kelly complained. This conclusion is far from unrealistic because, once again, this is a recurring theme with Michael.

Apart from his addition of the final choir, MJ started to make some changes/improvements to the melodic structure of the song from the very first moment he received the demo version from R. Kelly. According to past reports (that were also confirmed by several authors, like Adrian Grant) the two versions, R Kelly’s demo & MJ’s official version, reveal rhythmical/melodic changes on the part of MJ.

I suggest you stop sounding so dogmatic as if you had been in the studio during the sessions.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Suddenly having a different opinion is bias, okay :smilerolleyes: It honestly is impossible for people here to have debates without being labelled isn't it?

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

^^^^
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, and you have indeed shown that you have a bias against MJ on an MJ fan forum no less.
All things considered if I were you I really wouldn't be suprised if others told me I had a bias against Michael. :/

Just my $0.02, y'all can go ahead and continue the debate.

 

[Tony R]

^^^^
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Or a swan.