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

Okay so let’s compare Billie Jean and Invincible- “Mother always told me be careful who you love / Be careful what you do ’cause the lie becomes the truth” vs. “Yo, mami, stop the fronting, I'm real with mine / All the things that I promised, I'll fulfill in time” which one do you think is more personal 😂
To be honset i prefer ''yo mami stop the fronting, im real with mine , all the things i promised i'll fulfill in time. I maybe from australia but im a gangsta girl
 
Considering he hurt his back in 99 and was under lots of pain meds... MJ did a hell of a job on the 30th anniversary and I am a first row witness to that. Of course the second show was much better and we can try to speculate why.
i was surprised he could get up on stage and preform considering hes had so much stress in his life
 
You can all form a mob and call me racist for saying dance monkey dance, that still doesn't make you right. Completely normal expression. Look it up.
 
It is racists and mj would not have liked it

No you clearly don't know the meaning of the saying, I'm pretty sure Michael does. Tones and I made a song with the phrase, it's about the pressure that is put on artists by the public. Stop twisting everything into something racist.

“So they say
Dance for me, dance for me, dance for me, oh-oh
I’ve never seen anybody do the things you do before
They say, move for me, move for me, move for me, ay-ay
And when you’re done, I’ll make you do it all again”

 
Yes he would be FUMING! Can't EVER use the word 'monkey' in phrases. That's just RACIST!

 
Yes he would be FUMING! Can't EVER use the word 'monkey' in phrases. That's just RACIST!

You seem to be pushing this narrative, that's what is getting people's backs up. Don't use M 's art to push your agenda.
It's blatant.
 
You seem to be pushing this narrative, that's what is getting people's backs up. Don't use M 's art to push your agenda.
It's blatant.

No, don't twist things around. I used a completely normal, non racist phrase used by many to point out how some fans view many artists, and in this case Michael: simply as an entertainer who needs to do their bidding or else he gets mocked and slammed because they don't like what he made. The ones attacking me and calling it racist because they clearly feel some sort of guilt over it are the ones pushing a narrative here.

I was in this thread to defend Invincible, which is a fantastic and underappreciated album. People get mad over it. Many fans see Michael as their 'dance monkey' (again, look up the REAL meaning of the phrase) and are not interested in the MAN himself, for whom I have a great amount of love and appreciation.
 
The ones attacking me and calling it racist because they clearly feel some sort of guilt over it are the ones pushing a narrative here.

Many fans see Michael as their 'dance monkey' (again, look up the REAL meaning of the phrase) and are not interested in the MAN himself, for whom I have a great amount of love and appreciation.
we'll see.
 
We'll see what? It's not a prediction, but an observation.
well you haven't observed me then have you ? because i certainly don't and never saw M as that. I ..like you , was/am interested in the man himself. lot's of us appreciate the man, not just his artistry.
 
well you haven't observed me then have you ? because i certainly don't and never saw M as that. I ..like you , was/am interested in the man himself. lot's of us appreciate the man, not just his artistry.

Please read my comments again. Nowhere do I say 'all fans', do I? There are lots of fans who ARE interested in the man himself, but the majority just wanna see him do that which they find pleasing.
 
Many fans see Michael as their 'dance monkey' (again, look up the REAL meaning of the phrase) and are not interested in the MAN himself, for whom I have a great amount of love and appreciation.
Well, the swastika is a really old symbol that was used in different cultures. But today it's associated with Nazis and so it's considered racist although it wasn't orginally so. I'm not saying you're a racist, I just explained why using the phrase "dance monkey dance" directed to a Black man would be taken as racist, at least in the USA where monkey/ape has been used as a racist comment. The blackface in old entertainment was meant to make Black people look like monkeys. It's likely if you went up to a Black American and said "dance monkey dance" to him or her, they are likely not going to take it that well. You're probably going to get in a fight. Although "dance monkey dance" might not be racist in itself. Like if you went up to a person and said they are "gay" they probably aren't going to take it as you're saying they are happy or the f- word as a bundle of sticks. I think the f-word is used for cigarettes too by British people. The thing is while it might be a harmless phrase in your country which doesn't have the baggage behind it, that isn't the same case everywhere. It's kind of like if you are wearing red clothes in a Crip neighborhood, something might happen to you. Although red in itself doesn't mean anything.
 
I think the f-word is used for cigarettes too by British people.
Off-topic but I don't know what this means. I'm British. Are we talking about the obvious f - word? fk? Bc I've never heard that used to mean ciggies. I am intrigued. Also confused. :unsure:
 
Well, the swastika is a really old symbol that was used in different cultures. But today it's associated with Nazis and so it's considered racist although it wasn't orginally so. I'm not saying you're a racist, I just explained why using the phrase "dance monkey dance" directed to a Black man would be taken as racist, at least in the USA where monkey/ape has been used as a racist comment. The blackface in old entertainment was meant to make Black people look like monkeys. It's likely if you went up to a Black American and said "dance monkey dance" to him or her, they are likely not going to take it that well. You're probably going to get in a fight. Although "dance monkey dance" might not be racist in itself. Like if you went up to a person and said they are "gay" they probably aren't going to take it as you're saying they are happy or the f- word as a bundle of sticks. I think the f-word is used for cigarettes too by British people. The thing is while it might be a harmless phrase in your country which doesn't have the baggage behind it, that isn't the same case everywhere. It's kind of like if you are wearing red clothes in a Crip neighborhood, something might happen to you. Although red in itself doesn't mean anything.

Just because people choose to be offended by something because of the propaganda that keeps mankind divided, doesn't mean we should all bow to it. Dance monkey is STILL TODAY a common phrase referring to a circus monkey who has to dance for the audience. To say it's racist is racist by itself. And that is the last I will say about it since this discussion is turning into some monkey business here.
 
Just because people choose to be offended by something because of the propaganda that keeps mankind divided, doesn't mean we should all bow to it. Dance monkey is STILL TODAY a common phrase referring to a circus monkey who has to dance for the audience. To say it's racist is racist by itself. And that is the last I will say about it since this discussion is turning into some monkey business here.
But Black Americans are still called monkeys/apes today. It's not something that only happened 200 years ago. So racists are still choosing to use monkey/ape as an insult. Since you're talking about Michael Jackson, They Don't Care About Us was banned from many radio stations in the USA becasue Jewish groups complained about the k-word in it. Just recently Kanye West lost a lot of his endorsements because he said something about Jewish people. So you can't tell people what to not be offended by and don't say the same to the other side who are using whatever it is as racist insults.
 
What album is this?
I can read "Bassouille" on the back😮
 
Last edited:
I didnt mean to blow the dance monkey thing out of proportion and personally hate it when things are made to be racist when they're not. But I felt like you were making a point that a white audience were basically trying to make him do what they wanted, which isn't quite the case.

Anyway, the difference between Thriller and Invincible is all in the ear. Play one after the other and the difference in quality is stark. While Invincible is a well produced album with a lot of interesting sonic sounds, Thriller just cuts through and commands the listener to dance. Thriller is an incredible album with some of the most timeless hits in human history. Invincible is not.

HIStory is Michael's most personal album and even that seems more general than a lot of artists "personal" albums. I am not sure what tracks in Invincible could even be considered personal or as though they're a special piece of his life that he's offering to his fans.

----------

Unbreakable - a semi generic take on the fact he is resilient, of course no doubt he is. It's a little personal. It's acknowledging a personal reality. But it hardly brings the listener deep into Michaels world, any deeper than we know.

Invincible - a song about a girl. Just another song about a girl. Nothing here to suggest it's Lisa Marie Presely or any woman who was actually in his life.

Heartbreaker - see above.

Break of Dawn - see above.

Heaven can wait - see above

You Rock My World - see above

Butterflies - see above

Speechless - a syrupy and generalized song about an unconditional love, allegedly written about the play of children. This is well tread ground for Michael in the vain of Heal the World. Certainly not any more personal than that song. Really just full of vague and interchangeable sentiments about "love being magical!" Michael was prone to these kinds of expressions that seemed to belie a bit of an unrealistic and out of touch view of expressions of love, as though he rarely experienced it in ways we did. It's all very Disneyfied and fantasy and there's not anything here I'd consider personal nor particularly relatable. But he loved the song, it meant something to him, so there's that.

2000 watts - What is this song even about? Certainly it's not a page from his autobiography.

You are my life - I don't hate this song as much as other people seem to. I think it could certainly be seen to be about his own children. Is it super personal? No. Once again, it's another vague song, where a meaning has to be discerned through the likely false story of a woman. Not particularly personal.

Privacy - Think "Leave me alone" but not as good. It's become tradition for Michael to feature a song like this on every album, it just happens that Privacy is by far the worst. Personal? Kind of. But there's nothing going on here that goes even a single step deeper than "the media harasses me". We know that, Mike.

Don't Walk Away - Another vague song about an imaginary woman. You could twist and turn the song to mean something but it doesn't, really.

Cry - Heal the world part 2. Still not personal.

The Lost Children - Probably the most personal song on the record just because it's the kind of song only Michael would make.

Whatever Happens - Wonderful song, great story, not personal though.

Threatened - See Unbreakable - not particularly personal, but does leverage some fact about his life to create the song.

------------------

So there we have it, WHAT IS SO PERSONAL ABOUT INVINCIBLE?

I think a big mistake Michael made on the album is he tried to come across like an every man. Like he wasn't a 45 year old living in a theme park. This album largely sounds like a Babyface album. It's not any more personal than any of his prior albums it's just not as good.
 
Darkchild worked on Brandy's 2002 album Full Moon around the same time he worked on Invincible. Riley worked on Blackstreet's 1999 album Finally and Guy's 2000 Guy III albums around the same time he worked on Invincible, too. Blackstreet's 2003 album Level II also sounds like the Riley songs on Invincible.

I wonder if those albums have any songs that MJ passed on for Invincible.
 
Michael passed on Justin Timberlake's entire Justified album basically. Just as well, I can't imagine the more juvenile sound of that album working for Michael in 2001. I just think he went the wrong way with Invincible. Dangerous was an album of great vision that was all his own, and so was HIStory. For whatever reason, maybe mental health issues, maybe Sony's meddling, Michael put the album in everyone else's hands. And for that you have a very flawed album that 20 years later people try to convince themselves is an underrated masterpiece and/or "personal". As I have comprehensively shown now, there is nothing particularly personal about Invincible at all. It is just a fairly average 2001 R&B album that everyone would have forgotten about if the name on the title wasn't Michael Jackson. That's not to say there weren't nice moments or that the producers weren't trying to create the sharpest, most pristine sound possible. But it just didn't really work. People are entitled to other viewpoints but the consensus on the album is closer to mine than those who have some sort of strange obsession with the album, as the they must venerate it to save Michael from the perception that his music did, indeed decline. I am of the belief he was capable of more great music, Invincible just wasn't it and 2001 wasn't the time.

There are a few factors to blame for Invincible being perceived as a flop. 1) album quality and hit potential 2) marketing campaign 3) Michaels public image. In the end it has sold about 12 million worldwide and it's largely sold that on the back of one decent single release in YRMW, and the name Michael Jackson. One could argue it may have doubled those sales with the absolute perfect marketing campaign, but even that would have been a fight against Michael's public image. And then you have the fact they're trying to make Michael "relateable", which no doubt his public antics would have put the kibosh on. Really there was a lot going against the album. I can see 3-4 tracks that could have been minor hits, maybe, that could have made the album as successful as 8701. But we have to accept this wasn't Off The Wall, Thriller, BAD, Dangerous or HIStory that we were trying to market here. It was a phoned-in album by an aging, troubled muscian who was out of touch with the modern sounds and asking others to do the legwork for him. It was not this deeply personal opus that people want us to think it was. It was a fairly average, at best pleasant, at worst, pedantic and overwrought album. With Off the Wall and Thriller, the groove is infectious. With BAD and Dangerous, the tension boils up and is palpable. With HIStory the indignation is incredible. Invincible doesn't have a direction that defines it. It is an errant yell into open space with no message.
 
Last edited:
I didnt mean to blow the dance monkey thing out of proportion and personally hate it when things are made to be racist when they're not. But I felt like you were making a point that a white audience were basically trying to make him do what they wanted, which isn't quite the case.

Anyway, the difference between Thriller and Invincible is all in the ear. Play one after the other and the difference in quality is stark. While Invincible is a well produced album with a lot of interesting sonic sounds, Thriller just cuts through and commands the listener to dance. Thriller is an incredible album with some of the most timeless hits in human history. Invincible is not.

HIStory is Michael's most personal album and even that seems more general than a lot of artists "personal" albums. I am not sure what tracks in Invincible could even be considered personal or as though they're a special piece of his life that he's offering to his fans.

----------

Unbreakable - a semi generic take on the fact he is resilient, of course no doubt he is. It's a little personal. It's acknowledging a personal reality. But it hardly brings the listener deep into Michaels world, any deeper than we know.

Invincible - a song about a girl. Just another song about a girl. Nothing here to suggest it's Lisa Marie Presely or any woman who was actually in his life.

Heartbreaker - see above.

Break of Dawn - see above.

Heaven can wait - see above

You Rock My World - see above

Butterflies - see above

Speechless - a syrupy and generalized song about an unconditional love, allegedly written about the play of children. This is well tread ground for Michael in the vain of Heal the World. Certainly not any more personal than that song. Really just full of vague and interchangeable sentiments about "love being magical!" Michael was prone to these kinds of expressions that seemed to belie a bit of an unrealistic and out of touch view of expressions of love, as though he rarely experienced it in ways we did. It's all very Disneyfied and fantasy and there's not anything here I'd consider personal nor particularly relatable. But he loved the song, it meant something to him, so there's that.

2000 watts - What is this song even about? Certainly it's not a page from his autobiography.

You are my life - I don't hate this song as much as other people seem to. I think it could certainly be seen to be about his own children. Is it super personal? No. Once again, it's another vague song, where a meaning has to be discerned through the likely false story of a woman. Not particularly personal.

Privacy - Think "Leave me alone" but not as good. It's become tradition for Michael to feature a song like this on every album, it just happens that Privacy is by far the worst. Personal? Kind of. But there's nothing going on here that goes even a single step deeper than "the media harasses me". We know that, Mike.

Don't Walk Away - Another vague song about an imaginary woman. You could twist and turn the song to mean something but it doesn't, really.

Cry - Heal the world part 2. Still not personal.

The Lost Children - Probably the most personal song on the record just because it's the kind of song only Michael would make.

Whatever Happens - Wonderful song, great story, not personal though.

Threatened - See Unbreakable - not particularly personal, but does leverage some fact about his life to create the song.

------------------

So there we have it, WHAT IS SO PERSONAL ABOUT INVINCIBLE?

I think a big mistake Michael made on the album is he tried to come across like an every man. Like he wasn't a 45 year old living in a theme park. This album largely sounds like a Babyface album. It's not any more personal than any of his prior albums it's just not as good.
I heard ''speechless'' was bout mj's kids
 
So there we have it, WHAT IS SO PERSONAL ABOUT INVINCIBLE?
Whatever I sing, that's what I really mean. I don't sing it if I don't mean it. - Michael Jackson
He sampled himself on HIStory in 1995. So I guess, he means personally what he sings on Invincible. No matter who wrote it.
 
Whatever I sing, that's what I really mean. I don't sing it if I don't mean it. - Michael Jackson
He sampled himself on HIStory in 1995.
So I guess, he means personally what he sings on Invincible. No matter who wrote it.

Michael could musically put himself in the song's story and interpret it in his own way
 
Back
Top