What made Invincible such an expensive album ?

[kevin_1990]

lol

 

[OnirMJ]

that doesn't mean that an EP with 6-8 songs wouldn't do well or that people wouldn't buy and support it.

Where did you come up with 1-3 more songs? BOTDF was either 5 tracks EP or 13 tracks remix album. And I say I would rather buy 13 tracks remix album over 5 tracks EP. It's more material and you can always skip or now delete the tracks you don't like. 8 new tracks is completely different story. That is already an album (for example Victory, The Fame Monster, Xscape, Sonic Highways).

 

[OnirMJ]

Btw Weren't you the one who said that the songs on Xscape were not remixes?

Yes. They aren't remixes. What does that have to do with Blood On The Dance Floor?

 

[OnirMJ]

Sony was/is only thinking about profits how else would you explain such a shallow attempt?

Well, they are a record company. Of course profits are important to them if they want to be successful. I don't thing it was shallow at all. And considering that MJ had agreed to release a remix album I don't see a big deal if that album is BOTDF or separate album. Would it be such a big difference if BOTDF was released as EP and then a year later a remix album with remixes from HIStory album and BOTDF EP?

 

[OnirMJ]

You're missing my point. The point is they shouldn't be the ones deciding what the singles should be in the first place.

I agree with that. But, like you said. It is normal/usual thing in the music industry and it happens with all other artists. I think the decisions about first single and single selections in general should be something that is decided by both - the artist and a record label. Because the artist is sometimes to involved with his music and can't make an objective decision. It's important to select a song that radio stations will play. Because without radio airplay your single (and album) is doomed. That is what happened with TDCAU (& HIStory) in US.

I saw an interview with JT talking about success of his single Not A Bad Thing. He said that he liked the song but that he didn't think it would become such a huge hit. He couldn't make an objective decision because he was too involved with every song. And record executives were all mesmerized upon first hearing it. That is one example and the record executives were right.

The problem with Invincible was not that Sony choose the singles (and alone against MJ's wishes!), but that their choices were wrong, especially Cry! Mottola wanted this album to flop. It was his personal vendetta against MJ so he went twice against MJ's wishes, he deliberately choose poor singles (Cry). If record company is behind you 100% and they want the album to succeed there is nothing wrong if the suggest or even decide with the artist's approval what the (first) single will be.

 

[OnirMJ]

What was absurd in my post? What is absurd about the theory that perhaps MJ didn't feel great about himself and therefore was reluctant to do anymore music videos and live performances?

Everything.

Do you not believe MJ appeared self-conscious at the MSG show and in the YRMW video? Do you not think he appeared high as a kite on the red carpet with Elizabeth Taylor going into the MSG shows?

Completely irrelevant.

 

[OnirMJ]

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8614260_f496.jpg[/image][/QUOTE]

You could have put even younger photo for comparison. Maybe when he was in diapers. Can't believe I just saw this on MJJC. Like low budget tabloid junk documentary.

 

[OnirMJ]

I don't think Mottola liked it one bit that Mike had the balls to stand up to him & say this was his last album for them, & he would also walk away with half their catalogue. I'll bet Mottola didn't like that one bit.

That is the main reason. Everything else is completely irrelevant (his appearance, his prescription medications dependency) or less important (album cost, song selection, album delays).

 

[MattyJam]

You could have put even younger photo for comparison. Maybe when he was in diapers. Can't believe I just saw this on MJJC. Like low budget tabloid junk documentary.

I was testing to see if I could get a photo to post (having trouble doing this lately for some reason). Wasn't meant to be posted as a contribution to this thread.

And please get off your high horse.

 

[Tony R]

Everything Matt has written here is true. And it's very easy to fully blame Sony for everything but why in the world do you think they would plough millions into a project and then want it to fail. They are business for God's sake, they want to make money, not lose it.

The reason Invincible didn't sell as well as it might have is for two reasons, the choice of lead singles and secondly anybody outside his immediate fan base found it very hard to relate or like MJ at that time. So his enormous fan base bought it, and no one else had any reason to.

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Well, they are a record company. Of course profits are important to them if they want to be successful. I don't thing it was shallow at all. And considering that MJ had agreed to release a remix album I don't see a big deal if that album is BOTDF or separate album. Would it be such a big difference if BOTDF was released as EP and then a year later a remix album with remixes from HIStory album and BOTDF EP?

Of course profits are important to them they are a big conglomerate. I should have underscored Only. It seems as if they're only interested in turning a profit that they neglect the integrity of the artist and his product. This is ubiquitous when it comes to Sony. They Did the same thing to the Amazing Spiderman Movie franchise. DOn't forget that profits and earnings was as important to Michael as it was for Sony.

Where did you come up with 1-3 more songs? BOTDF was either 5 tracks EP or 13 tracks remix album. And I say I would rather buy 13 tracks remix album over 5 tracks EP. It's more material and you can always skip or now delete the tracks you don't like. 8 new tracks is completely different story. That is already an album (for example Victory, The Fame Monster, Xscape, Sonic Highways).

Well, In The Back was slated to appear in BOTDF which would make it a 6 track CD.

The term EP has changed over the years. Nowadays I see artists releasing albums with 10 tracks and calling them EP's. Even back in the day, they would release something called a Double EP with two Vinyls, each containing 4 songs and that would qualify as a EP. So the definition of a EP is vague and ambigous.

Yes. They aren't remixes. What does that have to do with Blood On The Dance Floor?

Then I understand why you would prefer a album with remixes such as BOTDF as opposed to a EP with 5 authentic songs. I think you are the first person I've ever heard express these sentiments. That's your opinion though, and I respect it.

I agree with that. But, like you said. It is normal/usual thing in the music industry and it happens with all other artists. I think the decisions about first single and single selections in general should be something that is decided by both - the artist and a record label. Because the artist is sometimes to involved with his music and can't make an objective decision. It's important to select a song that radio stations will play. Because without radio airplay your single (and album) is doomed. That is what happened with TDCAU (& HIStory) in US.

I saw an interview with JT talking about success of his single Not A Bad Thing. He said that he liked the song but that he didn't think it would become such a huge hit. He couldn't make an objective decision because he was too involved with every song. And record executives were all mesmerized upon first hearing it. That is one example and the record executives were right.

The problem with Invincible was not that Sony choose the singles (and alone against MJ's wishes!), but that their choices were wrong, especially Cry! Mottola wanted this album to flop. It was his personal vendetta against MJ so he went twice against MJ's wishes, he deliberately choose poor singles (Cry). If record company is behind you 100% and they want the album to succeed there is nothing wrong if the suggest or even decide with the artist's approval what the (first) single will be.

Sure, sure you can get an objective opinion but it doesn't have to come from a record executive. You could ask other connections like fellow musicans, friends etc. At least if you're going to go that route that you suggest consult with competent executives. LA Reid, Jimmy Iovine, Dr Dre, Geffen, Simon Cowell, these are people's opinions I would value, but Tommy Mottola and co? Nah, not so much

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Everything Matt has written here is true. And it's very easy to fully blame Sony for everything but why in the world do you think they would plough millions into a project and then want it to fail. They are business for God's sake, they want to make money, not lose it.

The reason Invincible didn't sell as well as it might have is for two reasons, the choice of lead singles and secondly anybody outside his immediate fan base found it very hard to relate or like MJ at that time. So his enormous fan base bought it, and no one else had any reason to.

Then it goes back to that original point, they should have let the man choose his own singles.

As for the second part, I strongly disagree with that point. You could use the same argument for Bad and Dangerous after his skin went lighter of vitiligo or after he built an amusement park or even after he was falsely accused for one of the most heinous crimes. Things like that didn't matter to a lot of people because the truth is that the music was too good and it triumphed over tabloid sensation.

 

[Tony R]

Then it goes back to that original point, they should have let the man choose his own singles.

As for the second part, I strongly disagree with that point. You could use the same argument for Bad and Dangerous after his skin went lighter of vitiligo or after he built an amusement park or even after he was falsely accused for one of the most heinous crimes. Things like that didn't matter to a lot of people because the truth is that the music was too good and it triumphed over tabloid sensation.

Yes, partially agree. YRMW & especially cry weren't good enough to get people to buy the album (understandably) but add to that ten fact that it wasn't cool to like him, plus his appearance and behaviour the it all led to the so called failure by MJ standards.

But even if WH or Unbreakable had been lead singles, I doubt it would have sold as well as previous standards due to the factors I have mentioned.

 

[MattyJam]

Everything.



Completely irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? If MJ wasn't feeling up to promoting it then it is very relevant. Jeez...

 

[Deleted member 9375]

Everything Matt has written here is true. And it's very easy to fully blame Sony for everything but why in the world do you think they would plough millions into a project and then want it to fail. They are business for God's sake, they want to make money, not lose it.

The reason Invincible didn't sell as well as it might have is for two reasons, the choice of lead singles and secondly anybody outside his immediate fan base found it very hard to relate or like MJ at that time. So his enormous fan base bought it, and no one else had any reason to.

Although I agree with many points you guys are making, in this instance I do feel that it's easy to make MJ look like the deluded overindulged diva throwing his toys out of the pram, but Sony did want MJ's ATV catalogue. If this makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, then so be it. There's a lot of ruthless evil people n the entertainment industry & by all accounts Mottola was an absolute power hungry monster. Mike was never indulged at Sony the way Prince was at Warner for example. As a Prince fan I'll be first to say Warner gave in to Princes every whim! & MJ made a hell of a lot more money for Sony over a much more longer time. Epic would not let MJ use his original cover for the sleeve of Bad, so MJ did give & take. Prince did what he wanted with or without Warners position, & he got more respect for it. Mottola thought MJ was a pushover because he'd been naive in the past.

Lets be very clear here, No record company wants any artists holding 50% of their catalogue! Heck, labels don't even want artists to own their masters! Would a painter not be allowed own his original painting?!! Lots of scumbags in the industry. Always was, always will be!

 

[Hess]

MJ was not as his best in 2001 for many reasons. - And he did not look very well either.

I think many factors played a role in the bad sales.