Latest on MJJC

What songs do you think could be on invincible 25?

I don't think we need anniversary albums every five years it becomes overkill. If the MJ legacy is something we want to have in 50 years time, you cant oversaturate the market. I think the Estate's handling of the legacy has been - to some extent - right in that it has been measured. Fans want everything at once and if you do that, you've got no room to release anything in the future. Dangerous 35 will almost certainly come and go. You might get something on the 40th anniversary. Same for BAD. Invincible isn't in the conversation and I'd give any release for the 25th anniversary a close to zero percent chance of happening. As far as Michael's legacy goes, it's a zero sum contribution. The estate may even want to distance itself from an album that was widely regarded as his worst and a flop.
 
Hurley509 said:
I don't think we need anniversary albums every five years it becomes overkill. If the MJ legacy is something we want to have in 50 years time, you cant oversaturate the market. I think the Estate's handling of the legacy has been - to some extent - right in that it has been measured. Fans want everything at once and if you do that, you've got no room to release anything in the future. Dangerous 35 will almost certainly come and go. You might get something on the 40th anniversary. Same for BAD. Invincible isn't in the conversation and I'd give any release for the 25th anniversary a close to zero percent chance of happening. As far as Michael's legacy goes, it's a zero sum contribution. The estate may even want to distance itself from an album that was widely regarded as his worst and a flop.
Click to expand...
If the Beatles worst album can get the reissue treatment, then so can Invincible. That's my stance. Way worse albums have gotten deluxe edition treatment anyway.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
If the Beatles worst album can get the reissue treatment, then so can Invincible. That's my stance. Way worse albums have gotten deluxe edition treatment anyway.
Click to expand...
Tbf Yellow Submarine although poor is pretty known worldwide, plus it had a movie!!

All you need is love is a Beatles classic and that song was on the album too!

Invincible to the contrary is dead as a doornail.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Tbf Yellow Submarine although poor is pretty known worldwide, plus it had a movie!!

All you need is love is a Beatles classic and that song was on the album too!

Invincible to the contrary is dead as a doornail.
Click to expand...

Yeah its not just about the quality of the album but the cultural relevence, of which Invincible has less than whatever the Britney Spears or Christian Aguilera album was of the day.

I just remember the go-to review headline for Invincible that I saw reused multiple times when the album dropped - "It's not bad, but it's not BAD". That pretty much encapsulates Invincible for me.

I think the best hope for an Invincible renaissance is a collection of remixes of the original tracks that maybe resonate with the youth - looking at tracks like You Rock My World, Butterflies, Whatever Happens.
 
Hurley509 said:
Yeah its not just about the quality of the album but the cultural relevence, of which Invincible has less than whatever the Britney Spears or Christian Aguilera album was of the day.

I just remember the go-to review headline for Invincible that I saw reused multiple times when the album dropped - "It's not bad, but it's not BAD". That pretty much encapsulates Invincible for me.

I think the best hope for an Invincible renaissance is a collection of remixes of the original tracks that maybe resonate with the youth - looking at tracks like You Rock My World, Butterflies, Whatever Happens.
Click to expand...
Yes for sure! Yellow submarine is pretty much a nursery rhyme these days, well all live in a yellow submarine, I mean everyone knows that tune!!

All the Beatles albums are still pretty well known to this day, only OTW, Thriller, Bad and to a lesser extent Dangerous are still cultural relevant.

I don't even think History would score much in a name a Michael Jackson album test.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Yes for sure! Yellow submarine is pretty much a nursery rhyme these days, well all live in a yellow submarine, I mean everyone knows that tune!!

All the Beatles albums are still pretty well known to this day, only OTW, Thriller, Bad and to a lesser extent Dangerous are still cultural relevant.

I don't even think History would score much in a name a Michael Jackson album test.
Click to expand...

No HIStory wouldn't. It was an album that confused people I think. Mixing it with a greatest hit disc meant it had a bit of an identity issue. I think the best songs on HIStory are among the best he ever released but there is this view that it wasn't an "album" as such that marred it. Invincible was often called his "first studio album in 10 years" by a lot of media types, a claim I found confusing but may be technically true in some respects.

I think HIStory had an era outside of the US but within the US it was almost dead on arrival. It did get a couple of hits in Scream and YRNA but I understand it fell out of the charts within a couple of months whereas it had staying power wherever Michael toured. But even then the album was received much better and was much more relevant than Invincible.

Its true to say that the holy trinity (plus Dangerous) are what remain relevant today of Michael's work. Some songs from HIStory and Invincible will also follow on but as albums they weren't really on that level. I think it's fine. We can't always expect everything he ever did to smash every record or be etched in stone forever. I cant think of any artist that doesn't have forgotten or forgettable albums or songs. HIStory proved to have a late run again with TDCAU and maybe something on Invincible does the same but I doubt it.
 
As for Invincible, there are a lot of reasons why it wasnt an "era". There were no notable film clips. He looked completely 'out of it' at the 30th anniversary show. His physical appearance and inability to emote. The rank averageness of most of the singles released. I have a lot of frustration at Invincible. I just don't think he was in the right place to release an album in 2001. The whole album feels to be out of touch to me. It was representative to me of where he was in life at that time - out of touch, trying to catch back up with the times and imitating the kids that were imitating him. Despite a few decent tracks it really lacks to make a unified statement or sound as an entire record. Some of that is also due to him becoming a passenger on his own album, as he allegedly was. I feel like we would have got a better album in 2009 than Invincible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xam
Blues_Away2023 said:
Tbf Yellow Submarine although poor is pretty known worldwide, plus it had a movie!!

All you need is love is a Beatles classic and that song was on the album too!

Invincible to the contrary is dead as a doornail.
Click to expand...
Well, YRMW is pretty popular. It gets more play throughout the year than most songs from HIStory or even Dangerous or Bad. It's more popular with younger people who prefer 21st century music.
 
TheFuture2007 said:
Are you sure that Bio is a real song?
Click to expand...
Yes, here

michael-jackson.fandom.com

Bio

"Bio" is a unreleased song by Michael Jackson intended for the Invincible album. The song was first aknowledged by Michael Prince in the 52nd episode of MJCast.[1] "Bio" was written and recorded by Michael in 1997. Although unconfirmed, "Bio" is said to be the first song made for Invincible.
michael-jackson.fandom.com michael-jackson.fandom.com
 
Hurley509 said:
No HIStory wouldn't. It was an album that confused people I think. Mixing it with a greatest hit disc meant it had a bit of an identity issue. I think the best songs on HIStory are among the best he ever released but there is this view that it wasn't an "album" as such that marred it. Invincible was often called his "first studio album in 10 years" by a lot of media types, a claim I found confusing but may be technically true in some respects.

I think HIStory had an era outside of the US but within the US it was almost dead on arrival. It did get a couple of hits in Scream and YRNA but I understand it fell out of the charts within a couple of months whereas it had staying power wherever Michael toured. But even then the album was received much better and was much more relevant than Invincible.

Its true to say that the holy trinity (plus Dangerous) are what remain relevant today of Michael's work. Some songs from HIStory and Invincible will also follow on but as albums they weren't really on that level. I think it's fine. We can't always expect everything he ever did to smash every record or be etched in stone forever. I cant think of any artist that doesn't have forgotten or forgettable albums or songs. HIStory proved to have a late run again with TDCAU and maybe something on Invincible does the same but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Xscape tbh has actually achieved more notoriety than HIStory or Invincible. It's seen as "more enjoyable" by some, less calculated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top