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