Latest on MJJC

So why did Invincible not sell well?

DuranDuran said:
No it would not. If a music video was that important for chart placement, how come nobody had a big hit with death metal songs? There's music videos for that. Death metal did not get top 40 airplay. There's also videos for gospel music & jazz. Not everybody had cable TV anyway to watch MTV, more people had a radio. That's why some of Mike's videos premiered on regular free TV networks. Some of those songs from HIStory had music videos, yet were not hits in the USA. They either didn't get much radio play or they were not released as singles. Earth Song was shown on VH-1, but no single and little if any radio play. Liberian Girl & Leave Me Alone also had music videos. Without the radio airplay, they weren't hits. Yet Butterflies was a hit with no video and the label wasn't really pushing it either. R&B radio just jumped on it themselves.
Click to expand...
Michael’s appeal in the 80s wasnt the same as it was in 2001. Liberian girl and leave me alone were also the LAST singles from the BAD ALBUM. An era/album where Michael Jackson had not be tainted by allegations and the LP had already sold millions and been out for 2 years and had already had multiple videos and a movie and a tour to support it. And earth song is still popular due to the video. And again the album HAD BEEN OUT, SOLD MILLIONS HAD A GOOD PROMO RUN, AND MULTIPLE VIDEOS AND SINGLES BEFORE IT. Butterflies got a song and a remix. There was no push behind and it was the 2nd single. And still NEW MUSIC FOR A NEW PROJECT not a year or two in. Stop being dense on purpose for the sake of arguing. POPULAR music vs jazz metal and gospel are not the same. Those arent big genres of music. Be serious. Butterflies was a great rnb track and it did great and had we gotten a video it would have taken it further than the top 20. The end.
 
R1chard said:
I'm not sure you really understand the music industry. MJ doesn't have a god-given right to promotion of an album that's failing.

Getting a 5th video can be seen as a reward for the 4th video being successful. Getting a 4th video can be seen as a reward for the 3rd video being successful. Getting a 3rd video can be seen as a reward for the 2nd video being successful. If you don't think Cry was terrible then that's the end of this conversation
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you understand common sense. Yet here we are. I never brought up Cry. The video sucked. The single was weak and it was safe. I said what i said. Michael should have shot and appeared in a video after YRMW for Butterflies and both of the songs should have been performed somewhere. The album went number 1, got a top 10 and was double platinum within 2 months. Therefore while the butterflies single was rising the charts an accompanying video should have come out.
 
michaelsson said:
I’m not sure you understand common sense. Yet here we are. I never brought up Cry. The video sucked. The single was weak and it was safe
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the music industry only spends money promoting something if they think they're going to get a return on investment. Looking at YRMW and Cry, it was looking extremely unlikely to generate any money. It's a competitive industry. No company will spend good money after bad.

Also, just to counter your point, Cry was actually an excellent CD single (if you ignore the title song being do bad). It was MJs only CD-ROM video, and it was extremely rare for MJ to include a new song as a B-side, and this one actually had 2 brand new songs on it. Really it was the best-value CD single package of his career.

michaelsson said:
Michael should have shot and appeared in a video after YRMW for Butterflies and both of the songs should have been performed somewhere.
Click to expand...
And yet that would not have helped. People just didn't like the music. Can't please all the people all the time. If you ask 100 people what's wrong with Invincible, you'll get 100 different answers. It was just a run-of-the-mill R&B record without widespread appeal.

michaelsson said:
The album went number 1, got a top 10 and was double platinum within 2 months. Therefore while the butterflies single was rising the charts an accompanying video should have come out.
Click to expand...

Like, at this point I'm just going to quote what I said in another thread.

It really frustrates me that MJ fans refuse to accept that people have different tastes.​
​
People did hear Invincible, they just didn't like it. That's it. The quicker people can learn to deal with that, the quicker everybody can get on with their lives. It really doesn't matter that other people don't like your favourite album. Stop taking it as a personal insult​
 
R1chard said:
What I'm saying is that the music industry only spends money promoting something if they think they're going to get a return on investment. Looking at YRMW and Cry, it was looking extremely unlikely to generate any money. It's a competitive industry. No company will spend good money after bad.

Also, just to counter your point, Cry was actually an excellent CD single (if you ignore the title song being do bad). It was MJs only CD-ROM video, and it was extremely rare for MJ to include a new song as a B-side, and this one actually had 2 brand new songs on it. Really it was the best-value CD single package of his career.


And yet that would not have helped. People just didn't like the music. Can't please all the people all the time. If you ask 100 people what's wrong with Invincible, you'll get 100 different answers. It was just a run-of-the-mill R&B record without widespread appeal.



Like, at this point I'm just going to quote what I said in another thread.

It really frustrates me that MJ fans refuse to accept that people have different tastes.​
​
People did hear Invincible, they just didn't like it. That's it. The quicker people can learn to deal with that, the quicker everybody can get on with their lives. It really doesn't matter that other people don't like your favourite album. Stop taking it as a personal insult​
Click to expand...
I already think you’re an idiot and dont carr for your opinions. Therefore I'm not reading all that. I said what i said. And i never said invincible was my favorite album nor did i take anything personal. At the end of the day it went double plat in 2 months and sold over 10million WW. It didnt flop the end.
 
michaelsson said:
Michael’s appeal in the 80s wasnt the same as it was in 2001. Liberian girl and leave me alone were also the LAST singles from the BAD ALBUM. An era/album where Michael Jackson had not be tainted by allegations and the LP had already sold millions and been out for 2 years and had already had multiple videos and a movie and a tour to support it. And earth song is still popular due to the video. And again the album HAD BEEN OUT, SOLD MILLIONS HAD A GOOD PROMO RUN, AND MULTIPLE VIDEOS AND SINGLES BEFORE IT. Butterflies got a song and a remix. There was no push behind and it was the 2nd single. And still NEW MUSIC FOR A NEW PROJECT not a year or two in. Stop being dense on purpose for the sake of arguing. POPULAR music vs jazz metal and gospel are not the same. Those arent big genres of music. Be serious. Butterflies was a great rnb track and it did great and had we gotten a video it would have taken it further than the top 20. The end.
Click to expand...
I Just Can't Stop Loving You had no video and hit #1 on the Hot 100. Scream had a video and reached #5. The Girl Is Mine reached #2 with no video (and no performances on TV shows like American Bandstand, Soul Train, or Solid Gold) which is higher than any single on HIStory except You Are Not Alone. In the US, You Are Not Alone was the most popular song from HIStory.
 
DuranDuran said:
I Just Can't Stop Loving You had no video and hit #1 on the Hot 100. Scream had a video and reached #5. The Girl Is Mine reached #2 with no video (and no performances on TV shows like American Bandstand, Soul Train, or Solid Gold) which is higher than any single on HIStory except You Are Not Alone. In the US, You Are Not Alone was the most popular song from HIStory.
Click to expand...
You telling me things i already know and again they arent relevant. In 2001 the era of music video, a video would have pushed it even higher than where it peaked end of discussion. IJCSLY came after THRILLER the world was waiting and anticipating not the same thing in 2001. YANA debuted at number one and still had a video release before it went to radio lmfao. U naming random one offs to try and argue a point is stupid. I said what I said.
 
michaelsson said:
You telling me things i already know and again they arent relevant. In 2001 the era of music video, a video would have pushed it even higher than where it peaked end of discussion. IJCSLY came after THRILLER the world was waiting and anticipating not the same thing in 2001. YANA debuted at number one and still had a video release before it went to radio lmfao. U naming random one offs to try and argue a point is stupid. I said what I said.
Click to expand...
Do you know who the biggest selling artist was in the US during the 1990s? It was Garth Brooks. Garth had music videos, but they were not shown on MTV or TRL. They were on the country music channels. During some weeks Garth had 3 different albums in the Top 10 on the 200 albums chart. That's the mainstream chart, not the country albums chart. Garth was more successful than those grunge bands.
 
DuranDuran said:
Do you know who the biggest selling artist was in the US during the 1990s? It was Garth Brooks. Garth had music videos, but they were not shown on MTV or TRL. They were on the country music channels. During some weeks Garth had 3 different albums in the Top 10 on the 200 albums chart. That's the mainstream chart, not the country albums chart. Garth was more successful than those grunge bands.
Click to expand...
Ok Good for Garth. Move along.
 
michaelsson said:
Ok Good for Garth. Move along.
Click to expand...
You said songs needed to be on TRL to have more success on the chart. Most, if not all of the songs in the Top 20 at any given week during that time period had a music video, yet many did not make the Top 10. You claim that music videos help songs chart higher, then it should work for all of them. Again in the US, no airplay no hit, video or not, no matter who the artist is. At least back then before streaming took over.
 
I think people should simply accept that invincible would never have sold 40 million copies, regardless of whether Threatened had a video or not. Obviously people don't have to accept it, but I just think it would be better if they did.

michaelsson said:
I already think you’re an idiot and dont carr for your opinions. Therefore I'm not reading all that.
Click to expand...
Ok, fine. At least now I know it was a waste of time replying.

But the fact you immediately get so aggressive and so dismissive is something I find strange.
 
analogue said:
I wonder how much of the album was downloaded illegally back in 2001. Those were the days of Napster, Limewire and Kazzaa so that's something to take into acount as well.
Click to expand...
Almost the whole album. Most of the songs were circulating in the fan community before the official release. I was one of the few fans at the time who purposely did not download any of the leaks. I could have asked many people for the files but I didnt, I want to wait until the album was officially released. I didnt want to hear bad quality snippets.
 
Michael was 43 when Invincible came out. He was considered an old artist by that point. Music industry favours younger artists over the older artists. How many artists have the same amount of commercial success in their 40s and beyond that they have in their 20s and 30s? Hardly any.

Yes, had Invincible been promoted properly (Michael was at fault too for the botched promotion of the album), it would have sold maybe a couple more millions, but it was never going to reach the commercial heights of Michael’s previous five solo albums.

All in all, considering Michael’s age, all the controversies surrounding Michael and perhaps the underwhelming quality of the album, Invincible did well to sell 7-8 million copies worldwide.
 
Last edited:
Nite Line said:
Michael was 43 when Invincible came out. He was considered an old artist by that point. Music industry favours younger artists over the older artists. How many artists have the same amount of commercial success in their 40s and beyond that they had in their 20s and 30s? Hardly any.

Yes, had Invincible been promoted properly (Michael was at fault too for the botched promotion of the album), it would have sold maybe a couple more millions, but it was never going to reach the commercial heights of Michael’s previous five solo albums.

All in all, considering Michael’s age, all the controversies surrounding Michael and perhaps the underwhelming quality of the album, Invincible did well to sell 7-8 million copies worldwide.
Click to expand...
Ageism within the music industry is something I've never understood. Why should an artists age matter when listening to their music?
 
analogue said:
Ageism within the music industry is something I've never understood. Why should an artists age matter when listening to their music?
Click to expand...

It's not "ageism", it's just that young people are the main audience for pop music, and most young people don't want to listen to music by people who could be their parents or grandparents. There's an identification aspect to pop music consumption which means young people want music from other young people. Boomers started the trend in the Sixties and it's been this way since.
 
analogue said:
Ageism within the music industry is something I've never understood. Why should an artists age matter when listening to their music?
Click to expand...
The record companies as well as the radios tend to promote the younger artists over the older artists. Why do they do that? I guess because they are thinking long term.

I obviously don’t agree with the ageism in the music industry but sadly it is a real thing.
 
DuranDuran said:
You said songs needed to be on TRL to have more success on the chart. Most, if not all of the songs in the Top 20 at any given week during that time period had a music video, yet many did not make the Top 10. You claim that music videos help songs chart higher, then it should work for all of them. Again in the US, no airplay no hit, video or not, no matter who the artist is. At least back then before streaming
Click to expand...
Being dense is a choice. We know visuals are used to help promote a song/album. They’re literally another form of promotion to get the song to a wider audience. Hence the sales of thriller skyrocketing further after the ‘Thriller’ video was released when they thought that the album had already peaked. I’m not going back and forth with a person who’s being combative for the same of trying to be right about something all while choosing to be dumb in the process. Obviously there are songs that do well with no video, and songs that dont do so well with videos. And vice versa. Had there been more videos to push singles that were doing well this could have pushed another top 10 single that was already in the top 20 without one. Get over it.
 
analogue said:
Ageism within the music industry is something I've never understood. Why should an artists age matter when listening to their music?
Click to expand...
Well it is to do with perspective I guess. Paul McCartney at 80 is not the same as Paul at age, 25. But he also has less to prove. And still works hard regardless.

Meanwhile Justin Timberlake at 43 or whatever is a far cry from what he was at 20. But I think he's always been coached so this is really just who he always was, just without a buffer.

Anyway,

People just assume the creative "peak" ends soon and then you're "washed up".

Pop is also hyper visual now so it's about being pretty and looking attractive on camera.

Hip Hop is not too much better. Depending on your status, once you're over 40 you're considered DOA. Lil Wayne is only 42, even though he seems like Master Yoda, wrinkled and decrepit.

Rap has been basically a young man's game. Someone like Snoop is in "Unc" stage. We'll see how this progresses with MVPs like Pharell touching 50.
 
Nite Line said:
Michael was 43 when Invincible came out. He was considered an old artist by that point. Music industry favours younger artists over the older artists. How many artists have the same amount of commercial success in their 40s and beyond that they had in their 20s and 30s? Hardly any.

Yes, had Invincible been promoted properly (Michael was at fault too for the botched promotion of the album), it would have sold maybe a couple more millions, but it was never going to reach the commercial heights of Michael’s previous five solo albums.

All in all, considering Michael’s age, all the controversies surrounding Michael and perhaps the underwhelming quality of the album, Invincible did well to sell 7-8 million copies worldwide.
Click to expand...
Well said. MJ in 2001 was far, far from the cool young guy that youngsters were dressing like in the Thriller era. The lead single and video for the album was not really popping like other hits from that time either. MJ's diehard fans are the ones that gave Invincible the life that it had commercially. If he had accepted those Neptune songs that turned into Justin Timberlake's album it may have been a different story
 
analogue said:
I wonder how much of the album was downloaded illegally back in 2001.
Click to expand...
To be honest, it's going to be exactly the same as every other album released in 2001. It's not like MJ was singled out. And plenty of other artists did have big hits in 2001.

If anything, due to the nature of MJs sales (ie he was popular because a high % of his sales came from the general public, and not from MJ fans), it could be argued that MJ was less affected by downloads than somebody more niche.

Nite Line said:
Michael was 43 when Invincible came out. He was considered an old artist by that point. Music industry favours younger artists over the older artists. How many artists have the same amount of commercial success in their 40s and beyond that they have in their 20s and 30s?
Click to expand...
Really, 30 is too old. For pop music, 25 is too old. Labels wants somebody young and naïve that they can manipulate.

Labels also want somebody who looks good in their underwear on a big poster.

analogue said:
Ageism within the music industry is something I've never understood. Why should an artists age matter when listening to their music?
Click to expand...
Another thing would be, for bands writing their own songs, they basically have nothing say when they're older. Imagine being young and hungry, writing songs teenagers can relate to. Then you're 45 and have $100 million in the bank and you're writing songs about having a yacht. Suddenly nobody gives a shit.

michaelsson said:
Get over it.
Click to expand...
To be honest, we are. There's nothing to get over. I'm perfectly fine with Invincible not selling, it doesn't bother me one bit.

On the other hand, you're the one attacking and insulting everyone. Maybe take your own advice.
 
It sold good.
Invincible was the 11th best selling album of 2001 according to Billboard.
Globally it sold better than Janets All For You, Ushers 8701, Madonnas Music.
books.google.de

Billboard

In its 114th year, Billboard remains the world's premier weekly music publication and a diverse digital, events, brand, content and data licensing platform. Billboard publishes the most trusted charts and offers unrivaled reporting about the latest music, video, gaming, media, digital and mobile...
books.google.de
 
R1chard said:
Another thing would be, for bands writing their own songs, they basically have nothing say when they're older. Imagine being young and hungry, writing songs teenagers can relate to. Then you're 45 and have $100 million in the bank and you're writing songs about having a yacht. Suddenly nobody gives a shit.
Click to expand...
I guess you've never heard the music of Puff Daddy/P. Diddy/Brother Love. 😂 A lot of rap songs are bragging about cars, money, jewelry, a mansion, women, etc. It's also in some of the music videos. Nelly & Paul Wall has a song about their grills (teeth jewelry). In Run-DMC's Christmas song, Run says Santa gave him a million dollars. Hip hop has been the number 1 genre in the USA for many years now.
 
Hot_Street said:
It sold good.
Invincible was the 11th best selling album of 2001 according to Billboard.
Globally it sold better than Janets All For You, Ushers 8701, Madonnas Music.
books.google.de

Billboard

In its 114th year, Billboard remains the world's premier weekly music publication and a diverse digital, events, brand, content and data licensing platform. Billboard publishes the most trusted charts and offers unrivaled reporting about the latest music, video, gaming, media, digital and mobile...
books.google.de
Click to expand...
Those numbers are for shipped units, not sold-through units. Tons of copies of Invincible, as is the case with many big-name albums that underperform, ended up being returned by retailers/put in the bargain bin.
 
DuranDuran said:
I guess you've never heard the music of Puff Daddy/P. Diddy/Brother Love. 😂 A lot of rap songs are bragging about cars, money, jewelry, a mansion, women, etc. It's also in some of the music videos. Nelly & Paul Wall has a song about their grills (teeth jewelry). In Run-DMC's Christmas song, Run says Santa gave him a million dollars. Hip hop has been the number 1 genre in the USA for many years now.
Click to expand...
But bragging about wealth or material possessions is only a part of rap/hip-hop thematically.

Rap/hip-hop encompasses a variety of themes, such as:

- poverty

- religion

- racism

- family

- drugs

- alcohol

- violence

- misogyny

- police brutality

- cultural heritage

- material deprivation

- economic oppression

- social marginalization

- glorification of prostitution

- sexual objectification of women
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top