Latest on MJJC

What's the max you think Invincible could have sold overall

DuranDuran said:
What's unique about beatboxing? You must not be aware of Human Beat Box from The Fat Boys or Doug E. Fresh. They were around in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
I know vocal percussion isn't exactly the same as beatboxing but it's not that different, imo. I like this one from Paul McCartney released in 1970, I think. Funnily enough, I've seen comments from Paul's fans claiming he invented beatboxing, lol.

That Would Be Something

2m 38s

 
Pretty sure it only hit 6m after MJ's death if at all

And even that seems unlikely. It hit 5.4m before promo stopped at the start of 2009 and sales slowed. Y'all are saying it sold 600k in 2009? Nah fam.

Maybe in the mid to late 2010s or the start of the 2020s, it exceeded 6m
 
Last edited:
Spaceship said:
Pretty sure it only hit 6m after MJ's death if at all

And even that seems unlikely. It hit 5.4m before promo stopped at the start of 2009 and sales slowed. Y'all are saying it sold 600k in 2009? Nah fam.

Maybe in the mid to late 2010s or the start of the 2020s, it exceeded 6m
Click to expand...
seems you're right, it should be under/around 6 mio.
From his passing through the week ending June 19, 2011, Jackson’s tracks have sold 16.3 million downloads while his albums have shifted 10.6 million copies.
“Number Ones” is the artist’s biggest-selling album since his passing, as it has moved 2.74 million. Jackson’s 2009 “This Is It” soundtrack companion album of the same name is in second place with 1.67 million. Next in line are “Thriller” (1.49), “The Essential Michael Jackson” (1.38) and “Bad” (550,000).
www.billboard.com

Michael Jackson: Two Years Since His Death How Much Has He Sold?

<p>While it's been two years since Michael Jackson passed away on June 25, 2009, his solo catalog continues to sell in the millions. .Biz, with the help of Nielsen SoundScan, breaks down the King of Pop's post-mortem sales.</p>
www.billboard.com www.billboard.com
Click to expand...
 
If you remove the number of album sales each MJ album had, and base it on quality alone... can y'all honestly say that Invincible is on par with his previous albums?

The answer is no. It's a decent album but it's certainly nowhere near his best work.

I'm sick to death of hearing excuse after excuse as to why it failed. It's Sony's fault blah blah , pish!

That's the truth right there folks. Remove your biased approach and look at the bigger picture.

Mike could have bounced back with a killer album after Invincible but we will never know , his mental state was declining so who knows what a future release would look like.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
If you remove the number of album sales each MJ album had, and base it on quality alone... can y'all honestly say that Invincible is on par with his previous albums?
Click to expand...
all I can say is I liked it very much BUT it doesn't have songs like Give In To Me or Who Is It
I like Invincible more than Off the Wall, Thriller, Blood
 
Last edited:
Hot_Street said:
all I can say is I liked it very much BUT it doesn't have songs like Give In To Me or Who Is It
I like Invincible more than Off the Wall, Thriller, Blood
Click to expand...
Well. Invincible is definitely better than all MJ albums except Dangerous and maybeee Bad (IMHO Bad is weaker too)
 
Hot_Street said:
all I can say is I liked it very much BUT it doesn't have songs like Give In To Me or Who Is It
I like Invincible more than Off the Wall, Thriller, Blood
Click to expand...
I like it less than all these but I still like it. Or at least I did a lot as a teenager.

I give songs like Whatever Happens and Unbreakable a lotta merit personally. Some of the songs do belong in S Tier. A song like Xscape certainly is S Tier. So is We've Had Enough. So is Beautiful Girl and The Way You Love Me and Hollywood Tonight and A Place With No Name actually.

I wasn't even thinking of all those, and yet. It just shows MJ was still doing good work in that period.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I like it less than all these but I still like it. Or at least I did a lot as a teenager.

I give songs like Whatever Happens and Unbreakable a lotta merit personally. Some of the songs do belong in S Tier. A song like Xscape certainly is S Tier. So is We've Had Enough. So is Beautiful Girl and The Way You Love Me and Hollywood Tonight and A Place With No Name actually.

I wasn't even thinking of all those, and yet. It just shows MJ was still doing good work in that period.
Click to expand...
He wasn't doing just good work, he was doing his best. Just like he did during Bad period. He was at his peak during these 2 eras
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
That is still Just your opinion. In my opinion I still see it differently, what separates me is not insisting other people see it the same way. I'm tired of people's dogma though.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it was just my opinion, it's how he was perceived during this period by the public and media.

I lived through this period as a teen so I know what it was like in 01.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
I wouldn't say it was just my opinion, it's how he was perceived during this period by the public and media.

I lived through this period as a teen so I know what it was like in 01.
Click to expand...
Well are you talking Peak of popularity or peak of ability? Because the former was definitely Thriller and the latter was arguably never.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Well are you talking Peak of popularity or peak of ability? Because the former was definitely Thriller and the latter was arguably never.
Click to expand...
Both tbh , his popularity had declined massively plus his ability was also not as it once was, I think the lack of self penned songs would probably confirm this and also the lackluster performances.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Click to expand...
You know some time ago, we were kinda friends with you. But then suddenly you changed. Why? I have never done anything bad to you. Also you always say, that it's okay to express your opinion. Then why do you you judge me? I thought, I made it pretty clear, that being my friend is better than being my enemy, because I don't have enemies, but you do right now... You look like a guy, who is trying to argue with the wall. The wall doesn't care, but this guy do...
 
Mark Shaw said:
You know some time ago, we were kinda friends with you. But then suddenly you changed. Why? I have never done anything bad to you. Also you always say, that it's okay to express your opinion. Then why do you you judge me? I thought, I made it pretty clear, that being my friend is better than being my enemy, because I don't have enemies, but you do right now... You look like a guy, who is trying to argue with the wall. The wall doesn't care, but this guy do...
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? You just joined this forum 2 weeks ago.
 
Mark Shaw said:
You know some time ago, we were kinda friends with you. But then suddenly you changed. Why? I have never done anything bad to you. Also you always say, that it's okay to express your opinion. Then why do you you judge me? I thought, I made it pretty clear, that being my friend is better than being my enemy, because I don't have enemies, but you do right now... You look like a guy, who is trying to argue with the wall. The wall doesn't care, but this guy do...
Click to expand...
’Sometime ago’? I thought you just joined these boards. you just admitted you’re not new. @Richard76
 
Michael Jackson in 2001 was a shadow of his former self in basically every regard. He'd lost the ability to emote and constantly looked in a painkiller fuelled daze. The Madison Square Garden concerts were average for him at best, with the first performance allegedly so bad that they've never chosen to air any of it and minders told him he'd need to lift his game. His charisma and relatability is nowhere to be seen on the You Rock My World film clip, where he plays a cheap imitation of himself. He handed over most of the real work on Invincible to everyone else. it was an album completely without a unifying vision. People are entitled to their beliefs and everyone has the album that resonates with them most but if you're pretending Invincible is actually anywhere near as good as his other major albums you're doing so in spite of the evidence. I find it quite dreary on the whole. It is bloated and a lot of it too similar and easily replaceable. In songs like Cry and Privacy he clings back onto old tropes that no longer worked for him, recreating past sounds that he'd already done but just doing them poorly. The "dance tracks", if we really seek to call them that, have no organic rhythm and are just a bunch of mechanical noises. The only songs on the album worth anything are You Rock My World, Butterflies (which I think is overrated as is), Whatever Happens, and at a stretch Break of Dawn and Threatened - and even that sounds like a bad Brittney Spears knock off. If I ever listen to the album in full it's usually idly in the background where I am not paying it too much attention. I wouldn't think it any better than a lot of the R&B albums of the time and if anything there are quite a few I think were better just in that year. The Invincible era for me was depressing. The difference in the man and music from even the HIStory days to then was quite stark. As much as his popularity may have waned and the media circus took its toll, and for all the promotion Sony did not do, you have to look at the man and the music. The man had fallen off. The music was suffering. You can't blame Sony for everything. I've seen some people say "but Michael said it was his best album". So what? Who doesn't say that about their most recent album? Who drops an album and goes "oh yeah, its not my best stuff... buy it anyway". Reports from those in the know understand that Michael was not all that optimistic about Invincible when it went out and the album was "rushed" towards the end to meet a deadline. I look forward to the next "Reasons you should respect Invincible part 20" post where we will hear other obscure reasons why it was his best album. But if the album was so great it wouldn't take so much work to convince even MICHAEL JACKSON FANS that it was any good. In all honesty, it wasn't. Giving the album a 6/10 would be polite. I was one of the people who really pulled for Invincible when it first came out, trying to convince friends and randoms that it was worth buying and that it was somehow relevant and good. it felt like my duty to do so as a fan. The good things of that era for me weren't the things he was even doing at the time. It was the HIStory and Dangerous DVD sets that were released that transported me back in time that kept me so engaged in the early 00's. The Madison Square Gardens concert reminded me of who he once was and how much I cared about his music at a time not so long ago before then. I really did become a fully fledged fan again in 2001 but it was more despite his Invincible era rather than because of it. I did hold out hope there was another great album to come but unfortunately that never happened. I think you can be a Michael Jackson fan and admit to yourself that Invincible just wasn't it. Forget about sales. It just wasn't a great album or period of time for Michael Jackson. I am probably more optimistic about the signs of artistic awareness shown in moments throughout the This Is It filming than I am anything he did with Invincible. And while I would be interested to know what plans he had for film clips and promotion, and while I think sales could have improved, I just don't think Invincible was ever going to work out that well. It all came off like Michael Jackson doing a stilted and bad imitation of Michael Jackson. 2001 wasn't the right time for him to drop an album.
 
Last edited:
Hurley509 said:
Michael Jackson in 2001 was a shadow of his former self in basically every regard. He'd lost the ability to emote and constantly looked in a painkiller fuelled daze. The Madison Square Garden concerts were average for him at best, with the first performance allegedly so bad that they've never chosen to air any of it and minders told him he'd need to lift his game. His charisma and relatability is nowhere to be seen on the You Rock My World film clip, where he plays a cheap imitation of himself. He handed over most of the real work on Invincible to everyone else. it was an album completely without a unifying vision. People are entitled to their beliefs and everyone has the album that resonates with them most but if you're pretending Invincible is actually anywhere near as good as his other major albums you're doing so in spite of the evidence. I find it quite dreary on the whole. It is bloated and a lot of it too similar and easily replaceable. In songs like Cry and Privacy he clings back onto old tropes that no longer worked for him, recreating past sounds that he'd already done but just doing them poorly. The "dance tracks", if we really seek to call them that, have no organic rhythm and are just a bunch of mechanical noises. The only songs on the album worth anything are You Rock My World, Butterflies (which I think is overrated as is), Whatever Happens, and at a stretch Break of Dawn and Threatened - and even that sounds like a bad Brittney Spears knock off. If I ever listen to the album in full it's usually idly in the background where I am not paying it too much attention. I wouldn't think it any better than a lot of the R&B albums of the time and if anything there are quite a few I think were better just in that year. The Invincible era for me was depressing. The difference in the man and music from even the HIStory days to then was quite stark. As much as his popularity may have waned and the media circus took its toll, and for all the promotion Sony did not do, you have to look at the man and the music. The man had fallen off. The music was suffering. You can't blame Sony for everything. I've seen some people say "but Michael said it was his best album". So what? Who doesn't say that about their most recent album? Who drops an album and goes "oh yeah, its not my best stuff... buy it anyway". Reports from those in the know understand that Michael was not all that optimistic about Invincible when it went out and the album was "rushed" towards the end to meet a deadline. I look forward to the next "Reasons you should respect Invincible part 20" post where we will hear other obscure reasons why it was his best album. But if the album was so great it wouldn't take so much work to convince even MICHAEL JACKSON FANS that it was any good. In all honesty, it wasn't. Giving the album a 6/10 would be polite. I was one of the people who really pulled for Invincible when it first came out, trying to convince friends and randoms that it was worth buying and that it was somehow relevant and good. it felt like my duty to do so as a fan. The good things of that era for me weren't the things he was even doing at the time. It was the HIStory and Dangerous DVD sets that were released that transported me back in time that kept me so engaged in the early 00's. The Madison Square Gardens concert reminded me of who he once was and how much I cared about his music at a time not so long ago before then. I really did become a fully fledged fan again in 2001 but it was more despite his Invincible era rather than because of it. I did hold out hope there was another great album to come but unfortunately that never happened. I think you can be a Michael Jackson fan and admit to yourself that Invincible just wasn't it. Forget about sales. It just wasn't a great album or period of time for Michael Jackson. I am probably more optimistic about the signs of artistic awareness shown in moments throughout the This Is It filming than I am anything he did with Invincible. And while I would be interested to know what plans he had for film clips and promotion, and while I think sales could have improved, I just don't think Invincible was ever going to work out that well. It all came off like Michael Jackson doing a stilted and bad imitation of Michael Jackson. 2001 wasn't the right time for him to drop an album.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: .. the disrespect here is incredible.

We're talking about music and performances, both of which are creatives forms of art and thus all you can do is have an subjective opinion which is unique to you and it's not a guarantee that everyone else is going to share the same opinion.

It's not really fair to make such objective claims like "the only songs on the album worth anything"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top