Where Invincible went wrong

[Kanye East]

While Invincible has some songs that I like on it individually, I don't think it holds up well as an album. I don't mean this as any disrespect to Michael. I think his other albums were great. Just not Invincible. A couple reasons why

• It has too many producers - it didn't feel cohesive or like an album at all. It felt like just a collection of random tracks strung together in a haphazard way. The first half is too electric dance-track heavy and the second half is too ballad heavy. I know MJ got a lot of co-producer credits, but just like his co-writing credits, I am really skeptical that he had much to do with most of the production on the album. He seemed disengaged in general during this time, probably in part because of the medications he was being given by his crooked doctors.
• There's nothing that ties the album together. HIStory also had a lot of producers, but that album had a clear theme (the false allegations and his response to them) that Invincible lacked. Invincible has neither a cohesive theme nor even a cohesive sound. Not only do many of the instrumentals sound radically different from each other, but the way the vocals are mixed/processed is very inconsistent from song to song. I remain convinced that Teddy Riley did some weird digital processing to Michael's voice on Heaven Can Wait, 2000 Watts, and Whatever Happens, possibly he pitch-shifted it down a little bit or did some weird formant processing on it.
• The awful skit before You Rock My World - why? Just why?
• It seems Michael had very limited involvement with the songwriting. While he gets credits on nearly every song in the booklet, it seems he had nothing to do with the writing of most of them. Break of Dawn had to be included on Number Ones to appease Dr. Freeze after Michael got a writing credit for it on Invincible, and the demo of Whatever Happens that was presented to Michael's team is exactly the same song as the one on the album. Ditto for Heaven Can Wait.
• Michael also didn't use much of his vocal trademarks (hee hee, etc...) on Invincible, apparently because the label told him not to. This, combined with most of the songs being from outside sources means that a lot of Invincible doesn't really feel like Michael being Michael.
• The album is just too long - the ideal album length is 45-60 minutes. Less than that and it feels too abrupt, more than that and it drags on for too long. Invincible drags on too long. You could easily trim 5-10 minutes just by reducing the amount of looped electronic beats in the dance tracks (look at the radio edit of Unbreakable for a good example of how to do this), cutting the YRMW skit
• The tracks could have been arranged better. No need to lead the album with 3 very similar upbeat dance tracks that are all in minor keys with a rap break in the middle. Maybe this was done because Rodney Jerkins had a lot of clout at Sony at the time and wanted his tracks to come first?

So, essentially, the problem with Invincible is that it is too long, internally inconsistent, with a very haphazard-seeming sequencing of the tracks, and a lot of it doesn't seem to have much of Michael's unique artistry in it (i.e. it seems very generic).

And a lot of the best songs from those sessions were not used. Blue Gangsta and Escape are way better than most of the material on Invincible. A Place With No Name, the contemporized Xscape version, is terrific, but the original version is a little bit bland for my tastes.

Let's look at another album made by a big 80s star in his mid-40s that was a comeback of sorts after a few years away from the music industry - For The Love Of Strange Medicine by Steve Perry (formerly of Journey). Like Invincible, FTLOSM was both a comeback and an end for Perry...he didn't make another solo album for 24 years (and for most of that time, it seemed as if FTLOSM would be the last album he ever made, just like Invincible wound up being for Michael).

• 9 of the 11 tracks were produced by Jimbo Barton (2 with Perry as a co-producer), the other 2 were co-produced by Perry and Tim Miner. This gives FTLOSM a consistency in terms of sound/arrangement/mixing that makes it hold together as a cohesive whole
• Perry genuinely cowrote all of the tracks, he didn't just buy demos from random people and slap his name on them. (BTW, does anyone know why Michael did this for Invincible? He had never done this before, all his previous albums, he only got a writing credit on a song he actually wrote, what changed for Invincible?)
• Most of the musicians are the same on all the tracks. Miner plays piano on both of his songs, and bass on one of them, and the rest of the songs are split between two different bassists, but other than that, it's the same guitarist, drummer, and keyboardist on all the tracks.
• The album has, while not exactly a theme, a sort of "mood" through the entire thing, reflective and tinged with sadness. Compare this to Invincible which jumps all over the place, from happy, to sad, to sexy, to angry, etc...
• FTLOSM doesn't have weird spoken skits, random sound effects opening songs, looped computer beats, etc...and it has 5 fewer songs, so it clocks in at 53, so it doesn't feel like it drags on and on the way Invincible does
• FTLOSM is sequenced much better. Both sides have a nice mix of uptempo tracks and ballads, and the songs flow together really nicely. Using "Anyway", a song dedicated to his ex-Journey bandmates as the closing track was a nice touch, especially when he reunited with Journey 2 years later to make his final album with them.

I know this is probably the first Steve Perry comparison on this forum, but I think it's an interesting and sensible one.

 

[Kanye East]

I remember reading somewhere that Michael wasn't really done with Invincible but Sony demanded it without further delay and so he didn't get to choose the track order.

I found this on Quora. Not sure of the veracity. "Invincible was rushed. Period. Of course, he spent two years on it and rumor has it it’s the most expensively-produced album to date. All the same, Sony kept pushing and pushing for Michael to submit a cohesive record (this was the start of their soured relationship), and as such, some of the vocals were just not up to par for his standard. It was a stressful time for him, not just because Sony was pushing so hard. “Don’t Walk Away” wasn’t even recorded until 8 weeks before it dropped (so around his birthday)"

 

[Richard76]

You are totally wrong, my friend! Invincible is second Michael's album, that has the best true Michael's style representation! Just like Dangerous (Michael's best album, it's on first place in my top), he show us true, real Michael! Without pop additives! Unbreakable, Heartbreaker, Invincible - these songs show us nature Michael beatbox side! Rodney Jerkin felt Michael's needs and reflected it in the best way! Whatever Happens is song that deserve to be on the same plate with Smooth Criminal and other top songs... Sony ruined everything. Blame them) Michael considered Invincible as his best album. And he was damn right)

 

[Kanye East]

You are totally wrong, my friend! Invincible is second Michael's album, that has the best true Michael's style representation! Just like Dangerous (Michael's best album, it's on first place in my top), he show us true, real Michael! Without pop additives! Unbreakable, Heartbreaker, Invincible - these songs show us nature Michael beatbox side! Rodney Jerkin felt Michael's needs and reflected it in he best way! Whatever Happens is song that deserve to be on the same plate with Smooth Criminal and other top songs... Sony ruined everything. Blame them) Michael considered Invincible as his best album. And he was damn right)

Do you have a source for Michael considering Invincible his best album?

 

[Richard76]

Do you have a source for Michael considering Invincible his best album?

Yes. He said that in 2001 interview. NY

 

[Kanye East]

Yes. He said that in 2001 interview. NY

TBH, if he said it at the time Invincible was new, it sounds like he was just trying to sell more copies of it. Pretty much any artist with a new album out will say that it's the best one yet. I wonder what he would have said if asked about it in 2009.

 

[Richard76]

TBH, if he said it at the time Invincible was new, it sounds like he was just trying to sell more copies of it. Pretty much any artist with a new album out will say that it's the best one yet. I wonder what he would have said if asked about it in 2009.

That's a fact) in 2009 Michael has already other musical visions. It's true. But This Is It tour track list didn't have songs from Invincible album not because Michael didn't like it, but because fans weren't really fond of invincible album) And he claimed in 2009, thay he will perform only tracks, that his fans like

 

[ChanceToDance]

I'm aware that Invincible is a dumpster fire but some of the songs saves the album from being completely bad to me. Break Of Dawn, Heartbreaker, Threatened and Speechless are excellent and is what makes Invincible be my second favorite MJ album (beating HIStory is hard lol). It also helps that a lot of the best unreleased songs comes from that album (TWYLM, Escape, APWNN, Hollywood Tonight and such).

TBH, if he said it at the time Invincible was new, it sounds like he was just trying to sell more copies of it. Pretty much any artist with a new album out will say that it's the best one yet. I wonder what he would have said if asked about it in 2009.

Seeing how he included Speechless and Threatened on the This Is It tracklist he must've held it in some high regard still. I think that him saying the album was better than Thriller was just some novelty bias in his part.

 

[Agonum]

A lot of the criticism you direct toward Invincible could be directed at most of Michael’s Epic albums:
Too long? That would include all of his albums post Bad (and even including Bad, if you were to ask Q).
Too diverse? That was a signum for Michael from Thriller onward. You got the rock song, the anthem, the dance tracks… Too many producers? It wasn’t too different from Dangerous onward.

Most of your other criticisms—unwarranted song writing credits, manipulated vocals, etc.—are either speculation or personal opinion.

Edit: Also, do we really need another thread about this? A bump of one of the many existing Invincible bashing-threads would be preferred. And if you really have to make your own, consider stating in the title that it is your opinion (“Where I feel Invincible went wrong”).

 

[Kanye East]

A lot of the criticism you direct toward Invincible could be directed at most of Michael’s Epic albums:
Too long? That would include all of his albums post Bad (and even including Bad, if you were to ask Q).

The original LP of Bad was only a few minutes longer than Thriller. The others were also too long, in my opinion, but they don't drag nearly as much as Invincible does. (I'd cut "Come Together" from HIStory because it has nothing to do with the rest of the album, and also cut that classical piece that's before Little Susie)

Too diverse? That was a signum for Michael from Thriller onward. You got the rock song, the anthem, the dance tracks…

It works on Thriller and Bad, held together by Quincy's production, and on HIStory it's all held together by being thematic - a concept album about the false allegations and his response to them.

Too many producers? It wasn’t too different from Dangerous onward.

Dangerous had 3 producers, other than MJ - Swedien, Bottrell, and Riley. HIStory, yes, but like I said, that entire album is held together by being about the false accusations, whereas Invincible has no overarching theme.

Most of your other criticisms—unwarranted song writing credits, manipulated vocals, etc.—are either speculation or personal opinion.

Is it really a speculation that the songwriting credits are unwarranted when the writer's demo is virtually identical to MJ's version? Michael was a great songwriter, I'm not sure why he decided to rely so heavily on outside writers and then claim credit for their songs for Invincible.

Edit: Also, do we really need another thread about this? A bump of one of the many existing Invincible bashing-threads would be preferred. And if you really have to make your own, consider stating in the title that it is your opinion (“Where I feel Invincible went wrong”).

Pretty much every thread here that doesn't deal with facts (i.e. how many unreleased songs exist) is an opinion.

I'm aware that Invincible is a dumpster fire but some of the songs saves the album from being completely bad to me. Break Of Dawn, Heartbreaker, Threatened and Speechless are excellent and is what makes Invincible be my second favorite MJ album (beating HIStory is hard lol). It also helps that a lot of the best unreleased songs comes from that album (TWYLM, Escape, APWNN, Hollywood Tonight and such).

To me, at least, the fact that so many great songs were left off in favor of not-so-great songs makes Invincible worse, not better.

Seeing how he included Speechless and Threatened on the This Is It tracklist he must've held it in some high regard still. I think that him saying the album was better than Thriller was just some novelty bias in his part.

Invincible had some great songs, but as an album, it doesn't work well. I'm talking about an album as an artistic statement in and of itself, not just if the songs are good, but if they work together well, with the whole as more than the sum of its parts.

That's a fact) in 2009 Michael has already other musical visions. It's true. But This Is It tour track list didn't have songs from Invincible album not because Michael didn't like it, but because fans weren't really fond of invincible album) And he claimed in 2009, thay he will perform only tracks, that his fans like

You're right about this, but I doubt Invincible would really be his favorite of his albums when it was the least "Michael-ish" of all his adult solo albums.

 

[Agonum]

The original LP of Bad was only a few minutes longer than Thriller. The others were also too long, in my opinion, but they don't drag nearly as much as Invincible does. (I'd cut "Come Together" from HIStory because it has nothing to do with the rest of the album, and also cut that classical piece that's before Little Susie)

Quincy is of the opinion that nine tracks really is the perfect length for a pop album. No mention of the length of the individual tracks. However, you are indeed right, speaking of the running length of the LP.

I commend you for your inclusion of “in my opinion”. As for mine, I’m not buying your argument for excluding Come Together from HIStory. Sure, I’m with you in regards to there being an overall theme present on HIStory, but it isn’t—and doesn’t have to be—ubiquitous: Earth Song, You Are Not Alone, Little Susie, and Smile are all songs that you hardly can fit into a theme having to do with the allegations.

It works on Thriller and Bad, held together by Quincy's production, and on HIStory it's all held together by being thematic - a concept album about the false allegations and his response to them.

Dangerous had 3 producers, other than MJ - Swedien, Bottrell, and Riley. HIStory, yes, but like I said, that entire album is held together by being about the false accusations, whereas Invincible has no overarching theme.

As mentioned, HIStory isn’t thematic througout, so I think your argumentation is faltering there.

And as for Dangerous: four producers are nearly a handful, and double the amount from his previous Epic albums. Furthermore, there is no album theme here whatsoever, so then I must ask if you feel the same way about Dangerous that you do about Invincible, in that you find it disjointed?

Really, the thematic requirement strikes me as odd. The only Epic album you can argue for it being present at all, is HIStory. Maybe Blood on the Dance Floor, but that shouldn’t qualify as an album but rather an EP.

 

[Agonum]

Is it really a speculation that the songwriting credits are unwarranted when the writer's demo is virtually identical to MJ's version? Michael was a great songwriter, I'm not sure why he decided to rely so heavily on outside writers and then claim credit for their songs for Invincible.

His contribution might be minor, but it’s still a contribution. In You Are My Life he allegedly suggested to substitute ›world‹ for ›life‹; it’s a tiny change on paper, but—to me—it makes a big difference for the impact of the lyrics.

His most prominent contribution most likely involves the vocal arrangement. Michael was incredibly gifted in this regard, as you know. And again, it might be minor and subtle, but it makes a difference.

The latter part of your paragraph (quoted above) is you speculating again.

Pretty much every thread here that doesn't deal with facts (i.e. how many unreleased songs exist) is an opinion.

Eh, yeah, well, duh? If you take the facts out of the equation, of course you will be left with the opinions.

It’s funny you exemplify with topics on unreleased tracks, because those threads are riddled with speculation disguised as facts. All I’m asking for is clearer communication here.

 

[SmoothCriminal1995]

One of these days we'll have a "Bad Is The Best Album" or "Why Is Off The Wall So Amazing" threads

The truth of Invincible is Michael's heart wasn't in it, at least not wholeheartedly. If his heart had been in it, he'd have recorded backgrounds for the tracks, wrote more of the tracks or produced more of the material himself. He had other priorities, mainly his children, it's understandable.

Personally I think mentally he wasn't in the right head space to come out with an album in 2001.

There's incredible work on Invincible, just not enough of it, to match the other astonishingly brilliant albums in Mike's discography.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Michael also didn't use much of his vocal trademarks (hee hee, etc...) on Invincible, apparently because the label told him not to. This, combined with most of the songs being from outside sources means that a lot of Invincible doesn't really feel like Michael being Michael.

Sony wanted to present a new Michael Jackson for the new millennium.

His vocal trademarks, his style of clothes (armbands, military jackets, etc), his long hair style, and so on, were all relics from the past and they had to be erased, according to Sony.

Sony ruined everything. Blame them) Michael considered Invincible as his best album. And he was damn right)

Michael Jackson also ruined everything and he also has to be blamed for that.

In the midst of the 'Invincible' album recording sessions, he announced to Sony that he was about to leave them.

Is it really a speculation that the songwriting credits are unwarranted when the writer's demo is virtually identical to MJ's version? Michael was a great songwriter, I'm not sure why he decided to rely so heavily on outside writers and then claim credit for their songs for Invincible.

It was rather a matter of give and take.

On the 'Invincible' album, while he took credits that he did not deserve at all, at the same time he gave credits to other people that they did not deserve at all (such as, the credits that he gave to certain people on cetain songs from Rodney Jerkins' team in order to promote and help these people with their later careers).

 

[mack77]

Sony wanted to present a new Michael Jackson for the new millennium.

His vocal trademarks, his style of clothes (armbands, military jackets, etc), his long hair style, and so on, were all relics from the past and they had to be erased, according to Sony.

Do you have a source that it was Sony that pressured him to change his vocal mannerisms or fashion? I think it was just him changing up his style.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

This is probably the one thread topic that I wouldn't be annoyed if it was a 10 year old thread being bumped lol.

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

This is probably the one thread topic that I wouldn't be annoyed if it was a 10 year old thread being bumped lol.

Bump 10 threads about Invincible? From each year? Ok if you insist

 

[Agonum]

Do you have a source that it was Sony that pressured him to change his vocal mannerisms or fashion? I think it was just him changing up his style.

I remember a relatively tiny Swedish newspaper (Upsala Nya Tidning) had a short note about this some time before the release of Invincible. It must have been quite a big buzz around it for it to appear there! No wonder, then, that I do wonder where the information stemmed from.

 

[@mjfanatic777]

You are totally wrong, my friend! Invincible is second Michael's album, that has the best true Michael's style representation! Just like Dangerous (Michael's best album, it's on first place in my top), he show us true, real Michael! Without pop additives! Unbreakable, Heartbreaker, Invincible - these songs show us nature Michael beatbox side! Rodney Jerkin felt Michael's needs and reflected it in the best way! Whatever Happens is song that deserve to be on the same plate with Smooth Criminal and other top songs... Sony ruined everything. Blame them) Michael considered Invincible as his best album. And he was damn right)

Yea! What he said!! One of my classmates who likes Michael says that Invincible is his favorite album (I'm making him into a Moonwalker)

 

[mj_frenzy]

Do you have a source that it was Sony that pressured him to change his vocal mannerisms or fashion? I think it was just him changing up his style.

I remember a relatively tiny Swedish newspaper (Upsala Nya Tidning) had a short note about this some time before the release of Invincible. It must have been quite a big buzz around it for it to appear there! No wonder, then, that I do wonder where the information stemmed from.

According to Entertainment Weekly and the KING! fanzine:

"Michael would undergo a radical change of image to promote his new album … Many of his fashion staples - military epaulets, single sequined gloves - have to beat it from his wardrobe … According to stylists hired for recent Jackson photo shoots, Sony insists that fashion consultants sign a contract agreeing not to outfit the star in his old style relics … Tameka Foster, a stylist for Lauryn Hill and Toni Braxton, suggests a more subtle vibe … Jamie Kimmelman, an image consultant for Shania Twain and others, would dump the androgynous theatrics …" (Entertainment Weekly, KING! fanzine)

Generally, their aim was that Michael Jackson's image had to become a bit more regular.

Rodney Jerkins (who was working for Sony on the 'Invincible' album) also stated at that time that Michael Jackson needs to change, come out totally fresh, which explains also why the singer was forced to minimize the use of his vocal trademarks on his 'Invincible' album.

 

[mjfanboy27]

invincible always sounded too overproduced to me they wanted to get everything out adapting to the turn of the millennium for young people it didn't work

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

invincible always sounded too overproduced to me they wanted to get everything out adapting to the turn of the millennium for young people it didn't work

It did work because young people love it. Are you young?

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

Invincible tracks have some of the best bridges in MJs career. Unbreakable, Heartbreaker, Invincible, Break of Dawn, YRMW, Butterflies. Just amazing harmonies and a great crescendo in them all.

 

[Richard76]

According to Entertainment Weekly and the KING! fanzine:

"Michael would undergo a radical change of image to promote his new album … Many of his fashion staples - military epaulets, single sequined gloves - have to beat it from his wardrobe … According to stylists hired for recent Jackson photo shoots, Sony insists that fashion consultants sign a contract agreeing not to outfit the star in his old style relics … Tameka Foster, a stylist for Lauryn Hill and Toni Braxton, suggests a more subtle vibe … Jamie Kimmelman, an image consultant for Shania Twain and others, would dump the androgynous theatrics …" (Entertainment Weekly, KING! fanzine)

Generally, their aim was that Michael Jackson's image had to become a bit more regular.

Rodney Jerkins (who was working for Sony on the 'Invincible' album) also stated at that time that Michael Jackson needs to change, come out totally fresh, which explains also why the singer was forced to minimize the use of his vocal trademarks on his 'Invincible' album.

If you are telling the truth, then there is one more reason to hate Sony even more! Because apparently his looks on this photos - Sony's work. And damn. This image looks TERRIBLE. There is no Michael's photosession, that i didn't like. He always looked perfect... but this.... this is awful. He doesnt look like MJ at all. And all because of this stupid fringe! Photographer, stylist or whoever made these photos - is idiot. I dont understand how they could let him look so horrid. I hope Michael have never seen these photos... MJ could always look cool with short hair: during History he looked perfect (you are not alone haircut), even in Men in Black 2 cameo he looked like himself... But this photosession.... Is just my nightmare...

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

If you are telling the truth, then there is one more reason to hate Sony even more! Because apparently his looks on this photos - Sony's work. And damn. This image looks TERRIBLE. There is no Michael's photosession, that i didn't like. He always looked perfect... but this.... this is awful. He doesnt look like MJ at all. And all because of this stupid fringe! Photographer, stylist or whoever made these photos - is idiot. I dont understand how they could let him look so horrid. I hope Michael have never seen these photos... MJ could always look cool with short hair: during History he looked perfect (you are not alone haircut), even in Men in Black 2 cameo he looked like himself... But this photosession.... Is just my nightmare...

Dude he looks great; what are you waffling about?

 

[Derek1984]

The drugs and cosmetic surgeries caught up to him. He also wasn't 100% fully committed to the project.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Those photos of Michael are from Men In Black II.

 

[Richard76]

Dude he looks great; what are you waffling about?

no. he looks awful

 

[Richard76]

Those photos of Michael are from Men In Black II.

no. in men in black he looked better.

 

[zinniabooklover]

no. he looks awful

He's a character in a film.

Michael Jackson convinced the 'Men in Black II' director to avoid making him an alien so that he could wear the famous black suit

"Men in Black" franchise director Barry Sonnenfeld told Insider that Jackson wanted to be in the sequel, but he had a specific request.

www.businessinsider.in