Latest on MJJC

The main reason most people don't like Invincible album is Rodney Jerkins?

Keyan Asadi said:
Michael Jackson went global in the 90s, he was too big not to.
He had already done it all in America throughout the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...

He couldn't even sell out gigantic arenas in America during the Bad tour, which is why he stuck to smaller stadiums.
 
Spaceship said:
Post the allegations? LOL no. History's underperforming in 1995 quite bluntly proved that MJ was no longer the biggest star.



Ironic coming from mr. "Forget the US" lol
Click to expand...

Did History underperform? Multiple number 1 hits, 25 something million sales, a huge tour?
 
Richard76 said:
Recently I started to discover, that lots of fans don't like Rodney Jerkins' songs on Invincible album. They consider his songs as weakest in Michael's discography.
Click to expand...
You summed up my thoughts. I am also not a fan of Teddy Riley's 2000 Watts. Always felt wrong. Forced. Was unremarkable and despite being bored by it, I also felt it ended too early (later I found out it was shortened!). It always sounded wrong on multiple levels.

The only track that I wanted to hear again was Break Of Dawn. Producer: Dr Freeze. I love Dr Freeze's vocals, and so did Michael. The song is the strongest on the album, in my opinion. Totally different to the rest of the album. Made by a totally different producer. To me this is proof that Rodney and his team were the weak link for sure, and Teddy had nothing exciting to offer.

Teddy later went on to lie about the fake tracks in later releases, so I have no respect for him, but that's another issue entirely.
 
On one side, there is the question of Michael's relevance and whether Invincible was a good album. On the other, there is the assertion that Sony sabotaged the album.

These aren't opposing realities and one doesn't negate the other. Invincible wasn't a 'great' album. Michael Jackson's relevance had taken a massive hit. And yes, Sony sabotaged the album.

My opinion of Invincible is it was of the quality of quite a few R&B albums of the day, no better than 8701 from Usher which was a hit, but no worse either. But when you're talking about Michael Jackson .... Michael Jackson.... you expect something a bit more substantial than your contemporary release.

How would you rate Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous against a release like Usher's 8701? Not really the same stratospheres are they?

That is what I think of Invincible. It's not an album that innovates or pushes boundaries. It is a pedestrian, oftentimes bland, and at its best, 'pleasant' album. It has more skips than hits.

As far as Michael's relevance I don't think the interest in him had abated that hard. The 30th anniversary special had 30 million viewers in the US alone. Clearly there was an interest in what Michael was up to and what he could or could not still do.

I don't think he did himself many favours in that performance, appearing "odd" and sedated for much of it. While he still proved to have his dancing and singing abilities he didn't look as vibrant and lively as many would have remembered. It wouldn't have been a stretch to see him in that performance and conclude the man was washed up.

It pays to remember that the performance served as the biggest promotion that the album ever got.

Michael's image (and especially the way he looked) did not help him at all at this time. If you have to cover your face in your one film clip you basically lean into all of the negative press about yourself when you're Michael Jackson. Plus the film clip for You Rock My World was a man paying homage to his own past, realy unhelpful when the hasbeen perception is already prevalent.

But then there's Sony side of things. If you don't commercially release singles in the US you're not going to perform. If you're not investing into an artist like Michael Jackson and allowing him to harness his own creativity and make the filmclips he wants to make, you're assuming his failure before it even begins.

If Invincible were a body on an operating table, they did not attempt to resucitate it when it flatlined. The only reason you'd spend 30 million on recording an album and not try to promote it at the first sign of failure is if you felt it were more financially benefitial for it to fail than for it to succeed. And I think that's a microcosm of his entire latter life, people made more money off Michael's failures than successes so he was often relpeatedly coaxed into things that were never going to work - *cough* THIS IS IT *cough*

So what potential did Invincible have?

I think with the perfect roll out, a more appropriate promotional campaign, the right film clips and the right selection of singles it probably could have doubled its sales and been among the better selling albums of that year. Certainly Michael's name still had 'some' cache. And I think its easily to imagine a small handful of the songs from Invincible having moderate success (and it's already fairly well established that YRMW could have hit number 1, and Butterflies had a lot of potential).

I think a tour would have been helpful as well.

So with Invincible bottoming out at about 2 million sales in the US and 10 million worldwide, I very much think it "could" have got about 5 million in the US and 15-20 million worldwide with the right handling. But that doesn't mean the album was great. For any other artist it would have been a solid enough release. But I find the album longwinded, a bit uninspired, and I feel like it would have taken some work to make a hit of it.
 
Hurley509 said:
But then there's Sony side of things. If you don't commercially release singles in the US you're not going to perform. If you're not investing into an artist like Michael Jackson and allowing him to harness his own creativity and make the filmclips he wants to make, you're assuming his failure before it even begins.
Click to expand...
I kinda doubt music videos were all that important when Invincible was released, definitely not as much as in the 1980s & 1990s. The early 2000s is when the main MTV channel was beginning to dump music videos for reality TV programs. It was also when Napster and file sharing/MP3s were beginning to replace people buying CDs, records, & tapes. Metallica tried to sue fans who downloaded or shared their music online, which somewhat hurt their image at the time.
 
DuranDuran said:
I kinda doubt music videos were all that important when Invincible was released, definitely not as much as in the 1980s & 1990s. The early 2000s is when the main MTV channel was beginning to dump music videos for reality TV programs. It was also when Napster and file sharing/MP3s were beginning to replace people buying CDs, records, & tapes. Metallica tried to sue fans who downloaded or shared their music online, which somewhat hurt their image at the time.
Click to expand...



They werent when Thriller was released either.... and then what happened?

I think a Michael Jackson film clip could have still been an event but they went with You Rock My World
 
I think music videos were still a big thing in the early 2000's there's some iconic videos from that period that have really stood the test of time.

Stan by Eminem as an example, Britney Spears had a few , they were still very much important.

If anyone remembers when the YRMW video was released, here in the UK it had its premier on top of the pops and then later that night the full version was shown on tv (if I remember)

The next day all the music channels were showing you rock my world on rotation , people were also requesting it so it was all over the music channels.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
I think music videos were still a big thing in the early 2000's there's some iconic videos from that period that have really stood the test of time.

Stan by Eminem as an example, Britney Spears had a few , they were still very much important.

If anyone remembers when the YRMW video was released, here in the UK it had its premier on top of the pops and then later that night the full version was shown on tv (if I remember)

The next day all the music channels were showing you rock my world on rotation , people were also requesting it so it was all over the music channels.
Click to expand...


And unfortunately they did absolutely NOTHING with the clip. "Hey Michael, can you do a Michael Jackson impression but half-heartedly please?"
 
Hurley509 said:
And unfortunately they did absolutely NOTHING with the clip. "Hey Michael, can you do a Michael Jackson impression but half-heartedly please?"
Click to expand...
You mean the video itself? I still really enjoy it but it does feel like a recycled version of a previous video , aka Smooth criminal.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
You mean the video itself? I still really enjoy it but it does feel like a recycled version of a previous video , aka Smooth criminal.
Click to expand...

Yes the video. The song is also a bit "ok" as well. It's catchy. It still seems to get the occasional spin here in Australia on radio or in the clubs. But I can't pretend its anything more than nice.
 
It wasn't supposed to be the lead single. It's like saying the Thriller album was gonna be bad cuz girl is mine came first.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
It wasn't supposed to be the lead single. It's like saying the Thriller album was gonna be bad cuz girl is mine came first.
Click to expand...
Why would people think that? At least in the USA at the time, that sound was all over the radio and was very popular:

Air Supply songs
Christopher Cross songs
Rupert Holmes - Escape
Robbie Dupree - Steal Away
Al Jarreau - We're In This Love Together
George Benson - Turn Your Love Around
...and so on

It was called soft rock, Westcoast, or adult contemporary then. In modern times it was labeled "yacht rock" by comedians. That's pretty much what Mike did his adult solo career, do whatever was popular.
 
DuranDuran said:
Why would people think that? At least in the USA at the time, that sound was all over the radio and was very popular:

Air Supply songs
Christopher Cross songs
Rupert Holmes - Escape
Robbie Dupree - Steal Away
Al Jarreau - We're In This Love Together
George Benson - Turn Your Love Around
...and so on

It was called soft rock, Westcoast, or adult contemporary then. In modern times it was labeled "yacht rock" by comedians. That's pretty much what Mike did his adult solo career, do whatever was popular.
Click to expand...
No one cares. The song is schmaltz. People hate that.

I don't but still.
 
Anyway, the reason people don't like Invincible, is because it's the longest CD. It's too long. And also the sequencing, is bad. I can't remember the track orders even. Granted, I can't remember Bad either but anyway.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
No one cares. The song is schmaltz. People hate that.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, how did it make it to #1 on the R&B chart & #2 on the Hot 100? Same with others like:

Paul McCartney & Stevie Wonder - Ebony And Ivory
Stevie Wonder - I Just Called To Say I Love You
Debby Boone - You Light Up My Life
Whitney Houston - Run To You
Sheriff - When I'm With You
Barry Manilow - I Write The Songs
Aerosmith - I Don't Want To Miss A Thing
Sheena Easton - For You Eyes Only
REO Speedwagon - Can't Fight This Feeling
the many "power ballad" hits by rock bands

Funny that these so-called "schmaltz" songs have always been popular with the mainstream audience, going all the way back to 1940s crooners like Perry Como. The Lawrence Welk Show was in production for almost 30 years. Kenny G is probaly the biggest selling jazz artist in history. Just because rock fans and/or critics don't like them does not mean anything. The people have spoken with their wallets & radio requests. šŸ¤£ Also there's a bit of sexism with that, since these types of songs tend to be more popular with women. It's no accident that adult contemporary ballads are often used in soap operas & romantic comedy movies, females are usually the majority of the audience for those. Notice that glam metal acts like Bon Jovi tended to have more female fans than regular metal acts that had a primarily male audience. Rock fans were also behind the 1970s "Disco Sucks" thing and the riot at the baseball game.
 
DuranDuran said:
If that is the case, how did it make it to #1 on the R&B chart & #2 on the Hot 100? Same with others like:

Paul McCartney & Stevie Wonder - Ebony And Ivory
Stevie Wonder - I Just Called To Say I Love You
Debby Boone - You Light Up My Life
Whitney Houston - Run To You
Sheriff - When I'm With You
Barry Manilow - I Write The Songs
Aerosmith - I Don't Want To Miss A Thing
Sheena Easton - For You Eyes Only
REO Speedwagon - Can't Fight This Feeling
the many "power ballad" hits by rock bands

Funny that these so-called "schmaltz" songs have always been popular with the mainstream audience, going all the way back to 1940s crooners like Perry Como. The Lawarence Welk Show was in production for almost 30 years. Kenny G is probaly the biggest selling jazz artist in history. Just because rock fans and/or critics don't like them does not mean anything. The people have spoken with their wallets & radio requests. šŸ¤£ Also there's a bit of sexism with that, since these types of songs tend to be more popular with women. It's no accident that adult contemporary ballads are often used in soap operas & romantic comedy movies, females are usually the majority of the audience for those. Notice that glam metal acts like Bon Jovi tended to have more female fans than regular metal acts that had a primarily male audience. Rock fans were also behind the 1970s "Disco Sucks" thing and the riot at the baseball game.
Click to expand...
My point is that the first single doesn't indicate the whole album. An Unbreakable single release and a cool video, would certainly do no worse.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Anyway, the reason people don't like Invincible, is because it's the longest CD. It's too long. And also the sequencing, is bad. I can't remember the track orders even. Granted, I can't remember Bad either but anyway.
Click to expand...
Invincible was bloated but I wouldn't say it was the reason why people never liked it.

If it had 16 brilliant tracks we would be loving life. The issue is that a decent number of songs were below what MJ was capable of.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Anyway, the reason people don't like Invincible, is because it's the longest CD. It's too long. And also the sequencing, is bad. I can't remember the track orders even. Granted, I can't remember Bad either but anyway.
Click to expand...
Is it really too long?

Dangerous: 77:03
HIStory Continues: 77:14
Blood on the Dance Floor: 75:55
Invincible: 77:01
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Invincible was bloated but I wouldn't say it was the reason why people never liked it.

If it had 16 brilliant tracks we would be loving life. The issue is that a decent number of songs were below what MJ was capable of.
Click to expand...
But the way he sang them was above everyone else.
 
Hot_Street said:
But the way he sang them was above everyone else.
Click to expand...
Yeah but some songs on Invincible were just not good enough, even with a killer vocal.

I just had a look, didn't realise that in the UK , Invincible only spent two weeks in the top 10 album chart...... that's seriously poor for a massive star like MJ doing a comeback album.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
My point is that the first single doesn't indicate the whole album. An Unbreakable single release and a cool video, would certainly do no worse.
Click to expand...
Unbreakable as the lead single would change everything, album instantly would get on charts, idiots from Sony would see potential of the album and release all 10 singles, that Michael planned. And Invincible would get a lot of awards
 
Richard76 said:
Unbreakable as the lead single would change everything, album instantly would get on charts, idiots from Sony would see potential of the album and release all 10 singles, that Michael planned. And Invincible would get a lot of awards
Click to expand...
Hmm I don't know , I think you rock my world was still the most radio friendly and hit potential on the album.

I love unbreakable but think that Scream was a better song and sounds more modern in 1995 than Unbreakable did in 2001.

On certain albums you know instantly what the big hits will be, it's hard to tell on Invincible, maybe MJ was not chasing a hit? He was 43 years old after all.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
On certain albums you know instantly what the big hits will be, it's hard to tell on Invincible, maybe MJ was not chasing a hit? He was 43 years old after all.
Click to expand...
Before Invincible was released he told Shmuley that he had achieved his goals in music.
 
Has anyone considered that perhaps the public was simply tired of Michael Jackson? By 2001 they seen him as a bit of a joke figure or a has-been?

They were no longer interested in his music, only the circus surrounding him?

New artists at the time like Eminem or Britney/destiny's child etc was cooler than MJ at this point and quite frankly releasing better songs.

I've seen the same excuses that it was all Sony's fault, I disagree, the album wasn't strong enough and had very little hit single material.

It is ok for MJ to release a bit of a dud, it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

Having lived through this era, I know that his image was very low , I was teased at school for liking MJ.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
New artists at the time like Eminem or Britney/destiny's child etc was cooler than MJ at this point and quite frankly releasing better songs.
Click to expand...
It has less to do with their songs, and more that they were teens or early 20s. Which is the prime age group for Top 40 or singles radio in general in the USA. Top 40 was always ageist, but as the years went on the age limit got younger & younger. Destiny's Child, Christina Aguilera, or *NSYNC could have recorded the uptempo songs on Invincible and the neo-soul & slow jam tracks could have been recorded by Erykah Badu, Jaheim, Maxwell, or Jill Scott and they would have gotten the radio play. P!nk could have done Whatever Happens and she would be played as well. I think if Nelly released 2000 Watts, that would have gotten heavy airplay, because Nelly was instantly very hot in the USA. If he could have popular hits like Air Force 1s (about sneakers) & Grillz (teeth jewelry), then I'm sure he could have done the same with 2000 Watts. Although he wasn't out at the time I could see Don't Walk Away & Speechless sung by Ed Sheeran, another singer popular today. I don't know who could have done a track like The Lost Children though, maybe Josh Groban, lol. But Josh wasn't really played on Top 40 though. I think he had the soccer mom audience like Michael BublƩ.
 
Richard76 said:
Unbreakable as the lead single would change everything, album instantly would get on charts, idiots from Sony would see potential of the album and release all 10 singles, that Michael planned. And Invincible would get a lot of awards
Click to expand...
I agree that it would have done better than You Rock My World. What I find amazing is how the label still had such an influence over MJ's career. The suits don't know a thing, and yet they dictate single release to a well-established artist. My only reservation is Unbreakable being different yet somewhat similar (in meaning) to the album title - Invincible. A cause for some confusion, maybe.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't MJ say he didn't want those (terrible!) remixes on Blood On The Dancefloor, too...but the label got what it wanted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top