Latest on MJJC

Which songs from his big six albums (Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad, Dangerous, HIStory, Invinicible) were originally going to be singles but weren’t?

R1chard said:
Because health? What if he'd done a more casual tour? One without dancing and theatrics?

Nirvana Unplugged is agreed to be one of the best concerts of all time, and that's just a bunch of guys sitting still on a stool (contrast with their normal show, which involved running around, having fights, etc). MJ could have done the same.


I don't believe that for a second. It's simply not something that's legally enforceable.

Anybody can stand up and sing any dong they want. You can't stop them.


Yeah, that's not the right definition, but they can do what they want, I suppose. Might as well say HIStory had 30 singles, since any song can be played on the radio.


And... It's very poor. They headlined Glastonbury in 2013 and it was embarrassing. Really terrible. They're even worse now. They've not had a top 30 hit since 2005, most songs don't get into the top 100. They've not had a top 10 hit since 1981. Just because you can carry on, doesn't mean you should.

I saw Blondie in the 90s and they were well past their prime. Imagine how disappointed I'd be if I saw them another 30 years later.


Again, it's not MJ's decision. He doesn't get to control that. It's the public reaction that determines whether more singles are wanted or needed. The first two flopped, so there wasn't a 3rd. But if the 12th single is a success there will be a 13th. See?


I really don't think you understand how the music industry works.


Yes, he would say that.

Just to clarify: every artist always says their most recent album is their best. It's because (1) they want to sell more copies, or (2) they genuinely believe it, just because it's what they've spent the last year doing, their memory plays tricks on them, etc.
Click to expand...
But what if they indeed tell us the truth?
 
R1chard said:
Because health? What if he'd done a more casual tour? One without dancing and theatrics?

Nirvana Unplugged is agreed to be one of the best concerts of all time, and that's just a bunch of guys sitting still on a stool (contrast with their normal show, which involved running around, having fights, etc). MJ could have done the same.


I don't believe that for a second. It's simply not something that's legally enforceable.

Anybody can stand up and sing any dong they want. You can't stop them.


Yeah, that's not the right definition, but they can do what they want, I suppose. Might as well say HIStory had 30 singles, since any song can be played on the radio.


And... It's very poor. They headlined Glastonbury in 2013 and it was embarrassing. Really terrible. They're even worse now. They've not had a top 30 hit since 2005, most songs don't get into the top 100. They've not had a top 10 hit since 1981. Just because you can carry on, doesn't mean you should.

I saw Blondie in the 90s and they were well past their prime. Imagine how disappointed I'd be if I saw them another 30 years later.


Again, it's not MJ's decision. He doesn't get to control that. It's the public reaction that determines whether more singles are wanted or needed. The first two flopped, so there wasn't a 3rd. But if the 12th single is a success there will be a 13th. See?


I really don't think you understand how the music industry works.


Yes, he would say that.

Just to clarify: every artist always says their most recent album is their best. It's because (1) they want to sell more copies, or (2) they genuinely believe it, just because it's what they've spent the last year doing, their memory plays tricks on them, etc.
Click to expand...
Even if MJ did say that, it doesn't matter. It's just his opinion. It's literally all opinions. That's all you're gonna get.

And yeah - he could've sang Invincible stuff. It just would've got pulled from broadcast.
 
Hot_Street said:
he wasn't allowed to perform songs from Invincible. ask @Mister_Jay_Tee
Click to expand...
You can @ as many people as you like. It doesn't change the fact that (1) it doesn't make sense from a business point of view, (2) it. is. not. legally. enforceable.

Again, anybody can sing any song they like, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
 
R1chard said:
You can @ as many people as you like. It doesn't change the fact that (1) it doesn't make sense from a business point of view, (2) it. is. not. legally. enforceable.

Again, anybody can sing any song they like, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Click to expand...
It doesn't change the fact it happened. We barely have that 2002 footage anyway.
 
Hot_Street said:
It seems Michael tried his best for Invincible.
They wanted him to sell his catalogue, that's why they caused financial trouble.
Click to expand...
It has been written that Michael Jackson actually planned to perform 'Whatever Happens' during the Grammy Awards.

The performance was even rehearsed by musicians, except for guitarist Carlos Santana who was on tour at that time.

Carlos Santana's absence eventually made Michael Jackson cancel that performance.
R1chard said:
Because health? What if he'd done a more casual tour? One without dancing and theatrics?

Nirvana Unplugged is agreed to be one of the best concerts of all time, and that's just a bunch of guys sitting still on a stool (contrast with their normal show, which involved running around, having fights, etc). MJ could have done the same.
Click to expand...
An unplugged performance by Michael Jackson would have tarnished his pop image.

Also, such an unplugged performance would have been regarded as a downgrade for him, given his on stage high standards (dancing, theatrics, fireworks, and so on).
 
mj_frenzy said:
It has been written that Michael Jackson actually planned to perform 'Whatever Happens' during the Grammy Awards.

The performance was even rehearsed by musicians, except for guitarist Carlos Santana who was on tour at that time.

Carlos Santana's absence eventually made Michael Jackson cancel that performance.

An unplugged performance by Michael Jackson would have tarnished his pop image.

Also, such an unplugged performance would have been regarded as a downgrade for him, given his on stage high standards (dancing, theatrics, fireworks, and so on).
Click to expand...
An unplugged performance would have absolutely not tarnished his reputation, what a stupid thing to say.

Was he supposed to just lip sync and dance his way through everything that he did with smoke and mirrors and never actually let the audience hear his great voice? As a mature man it would make perfect sense to let people hear him sing.

It's about being versatile, all artists can do it, some of the most beautiful performances I've ever heard have been striped back. What a lame excuse.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
In the case of the shows on ABC, it was a television standard, I remember. It just wasn't able to be broadcast.
Click to expand...
Oh, so this is a one-off TV thing and nothing to do with tours in general? Got it.

mj_frenzy said:
e performance was even rehearsed by musicians, except for guitarist Carlos Santana who was on tour at that time.
Click to expand...
The Grammy awards are always during February, right? I just checked, and Carlos Santana was not on tour in a Feb until 2003.

mj_frenzy said:
unplugged performance by Michael Jackson would have tarnished his pop image.
Click to expand...
Huh?! Miming the majority of the HIStory tour is what ruined his live reputation!

Motown literally released an album called "The Stripped Mixes", so they obviously thought it was a good idea.

And surely most people's favourite MJ commercial was him solo on a piano. Who wouldn't want 2 hours of that?


Compare with Johnny Cash - the highlight of his live career were his rowdy concerts at Folsom Prison. And yet a lot of people only know him for his subdued solo performance of Hurt at age 72, which won a Grammy.
 
Hello all,

First time poster here, though I have been lurking around reading for awhile.
Anyway, seems as if this has become an Invincible centric thread.
Well, I was working in the music business (UK and Europe end) in 2001 and was marginally involved with Sony and the Invincible campaign. Time to clear up a lot of speculation and ideas (some of it quite bizarre):

Firstly, Sony UK/Europe planned and wanted a major campaign for the album.
However, MJ was signed to the US entity - who ultimately controlled video budgets, remix budgets and so forth.
In terms of actual singles releases, talk of plans for ten singles are, frankly, very silly.
At most any album, even major releases, back then would start with a three single kick off with supporting videos.
Case in point, look at Dangerous - the first three singles were the same everywhere as those were the three videos first delivered.

Because it was obvious Dangerous was going to be big within its first few months, budgets were allowed for a load of videos which were subsequently produced and different markets could then select at will the releases (hence the fourth single was different worldwide for Dangerous). This was not just the case with Dangerous, but also other major albums of the time like Def Leppard’s Adrenalize (same first three singles worldwide, then different fourth and fifth singles by markets thereafter making their individual choices). Of course, there are always exceptions but this was pretty much the way big album campaigns would work. A three single plan kick off, then wait and see….

Now that does not mean some vague planning for single sequences is not made beyond the first three singles, but they remain just that…vague (e.g.it was always planned that Heal the World would be a Christmas single).

Anyway, back to Invincible. The first sign the UK and rest of world noticed problems with the album campaign was the schedule of the special editions and the single disc History album. The UK led others in giving feedback that the releasing of all these albums was far too much in the same period as a new album launch but this feedback was ignored (which was really surprising giving that MJ was selling far more in Europe than in the US in the 90s).

Flags were then raised with YRMW as the first single. Now, to be clear Europe loved it as a single and were proved right as it was HUGE on radio. They were also happy with the video. BUT, there were no remixes provided. I was working in club promotions at the time, and we had been promised a load of mixes to service to clubs and add as bonus tracks for the singles, but none of it was provided.

Then came the second single, which was Cry. Now, again, Cry was the scheduled 2nd single in the US but becuase it bombed at radio testing the US moved on with Butterflies. But, Europe only had the video for Cry and needed a Xmas single, so had to go with it though no one had any faith in it, and sure enough it bombed on the charts.

Now, Sony UK worked Invincible hard in its first two months, huge press and media campaigns but the album was seriously underperforming. Though, in France, the album was huge so Europe as a whole was mixed on initial performance. BUT, there was real frustration with the US label - questions as to why there had been no coordinated international licensing of the 30th anniversary concerts, why no remixes, why a lousy 2nd video, why no video for Butterfly even though it was hitting big in the US etc…. But no real concrete indication of the root cause problems that were occurring.

And so, Europe planned for Unbreakable as the third single as this was meant to be the third video. The track was pushed out to urban music DJs to lay the ground for club servicing and then….then the rumours were confirmed to various Sony Offices - MJ had indeed advised the US firm he had wanted out, and he had determined that he would not promote Invincible.

There was a lot of anger, from European Sony offices at both the US office and MJ - e.g. the UK had spent a fortune on the album campaign to keep it alive in the hope that new singles and videos would be forthcoming and did not even break even on its expenses until 2003!!!!

By all accounts, Sony had spent the first few months of the Invincible campaign trying to keep the door open for MJ to work with them, but he just did not do so.

I really think MJ messed up with Invincible album.

And, even though this is my first post, I will say there are some really deluded fans on here blaming Sony and they need to get a reality check! I mean, how on Earth do you expect a record company to invest in an album where the artist is not just telling you he is leaving, but also refusing to promote the album?!? He didn’t even feature the Invincible album cover as part of his discography montage during the 30th anniversary concerts!

Sorry, but MJ messed up big time on Invincible - even if he had wanted to leave, he should not have made his declaration so forcibly. He should have said to Sony, ”guys, I am not sure if you are the label for me but let’s see how we both do with the next album and take it from there”. And he should have then been a collaborative partner helping with the promotion and having a realistic expectation of video budgets (I heard rumours he wanted twenty million for Unbreakable!).

Anyway, this has become Invincible centric but hopefully provides some direct insight into the single scheduling of the album.

Oh, one last note. Speechless was loved by the UK’s biggest radio station (Radio 2), who gave it some airplay in February 02 without servicing from the label. It led to the idea of releasing the track as a single in Europe without any video but the idea was scrapped after some discussion.
 
Last edited:
MonkeyCheater said:
Hello all,

First time poster here, though I have been lurking around reading for awhile.
Anyway, seems as if this has become an Invincible centric thread.
Well, I was working in the music business (UK and Europe end) in 2001 and was marginally involved with Sony and the Invincible campaign. Time to clear up a lot of speculation and ideas (some of it quite bizarre):

Firstly, Sony UK/Europe planned and wanted a major campaign for the album.
However, MJ was signed to the US entity - who ultimately controlled video budgets, remix budgets and so forth.
In terms of actual singles releases, talk of plans for ten singles are, frankly, very silly.
At most any album, even major releases, back then would start with a three single kick off with supporting videos.
Case in point, look at Dangerous - the first three singles were the same everywhere as those were the three videos first delivered.

Because it was obvious Dangerous was going to be big within its first few months, budgets were allowed for a load of videos which were subsequently produced and different markets could then select at will the releases (hence the fourth single was different worldwide for Dangerous). This was not just the case with Dangerous, but also other major albums of the time like Def Leppard’s Adrenalize (same first three singles worldwide, then different fourth and fifth singles by markets thereafter making their individual choices). Of course, there are always exceptions but this was pretty much the way big album campaigns would work. A three single plan kick off, then wait and see….

Now that does not mean some vague planning for single sequences is not made beyond the first three singles, but they remain just that…vague (e.g.it was always planned that Heal the World would be a Christmas single).

Anyway, back to Invincible. The first sign the UK and rest of world noticed problems with the album campaign was the schedule of the special editions and the single disc History album. The UK led others in giving feedback that the releasing of all these albums was far too much in the same period as a new album launch but this feedback was ignored (which was really surprising giving that MJ was selling far more in Europe than in the US in the 90s).

Flags were then raised with YRMW as the first single. Now, to be clear Europe loved it as a single and were proved right as it was HUGE on radio. They were also happy with the video. BUT, there were no remixes provided. I was working in club promotions at the time, and we had been promised a load of mixes to service to clubs and add as bonus tracks for the singles, but none of it was provided.

Then came the second single, which was Cry. Now, again, Cry was the scheduled 2nd single in the US but becuase it bombed at radio testing the US moved on with Butterflies. But, Europe only had the video for Cry and needed a Xmas single, so had to go with it though no one had any faith in it, and sure enough it bombed on the charts.

Now, Sony UK worked Invincible hard in its first two months, huge press and media campaigns but the album was seriously underperforming. Though, in France, the album was huge so Europe as a whole was mixed on initial performance. BUT, there was real frustration with the US label - questions as to why there had been no coordinated international licensing of the 30th anniversary concerts, why no remixes, why a lousy 2nd video, why no video for Butterfly even though it was hitting big in the US etc…. But no real concrete indication of the root cause problems that were occurring.

And so, Europe planned for Unbreakable as the third single as this was meant to be the third video. The track was pushed out to urban music DJs to lay the ground for club servicing and then….then the rumours were confirmed to various Sony Offices - MJ had indeed advised the US firm he had wanted out, and he had determined that he would not promote Invincible.

There was a lot of anger, from European Sony offices at both the US office and MJ - e.g. the UK had spent a fortune on the album campaign to keep it alive in the hope that new singles and videos would be forthcoming and did not even break even on its expenses until 2003!!!!

By all accounts, Sony had spent the first few months of the Invincible campaign trying to keep the door open for MJ to work with them, but he just did not do so.

I really think MJ messed up with Invincible album.

And, even though this is my first post, I will say there are some really deluded fans on here blaming Sony and they need to get a reality check! I mean, how on Earth do you expect a record company to invest in an album where the artist is not just telling you he is leaving, but also refusing to promote the album?!? He didn’t even feature the Invincible album cover as part of his discography montage during the 30th anniversary concerts!

Sorry, but MJ messed up big time on Invincible - even if he had wanted to leave, he should not have made his declaration so forcibly. He should have said to Sony, ”guys, I am not sure if you are the label for me but let’s see how we both do with the next album and take it from there”. And he should have then been a collaborative partner helping with the promotion and having a realistic expectation of video budgets (I heard rumours he wanted twenty million for Unbreakable!).

Anyway, this has become Invincible centric but hopefully provides some direct insight into the single scheduling of the album.

Oh, one last note. Speechless was loved by the UK’s biggest radio station (Radio 2), who gave it some airplay in February 02 without servicing from the label. It led to the idea of releasing the track as a single in Europe without any video but the idea was scrapped after some discussion.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for this wonderful insight.

Hopefully those who keep claiming Sony sabotaged the entire project will finally keep quiet and acknowledge that MJ also had a big part to play.
 
Thank-you to the above three for your warm feedback to my first post.
I am a big MJ fan, but not a deluded one and my time in the industry saw me take a critical eye to the way MJ approached his work in the 00s.

To build on your comment, BluesAway, I do remember for the first few months we on the UK side thought the US were just really screwing up out of incompetence. For sure, we knew the rumours that MJ was leaving the label, but it just wasn’t believed because the money being thrown at Invincible was still pretty decent from the US (videos, remixes).
I now know that the US label were going ahead and paying for remixes, were pitching videos for MJ to consider etc. They were trying to entice him to be a collaborative partner and leaving the door open for him to play ball.
But like some spoilt kid, he just did not do so.
So, really, when you think about, it shows how special treatment MJ was actually afforded. If any other artist had acted like MJ, the label would have just put the artist on the bench and wait for a bail out agreement. Instead, because MJ was so important, the US label kept the situation secret and spent months trying to salvage the relationship.

Alas, it never happened.
It is a shame actually, because Invincible landed at US radio much better than expected. If MJ had played ball, remixes of Butterfly would have been serviced along with a video and I think that would have delivered a number 1 on the Billboard 100.

It could have been a good era, I know we in the UK were really looking forward to it, and as a fan, I was loving the idea of working and playing a part in a promoting a MJ album. Alas, what a waste, and I do not blame Sony!
 
thanks @MonkeyCheater
he did some promotion for Invincible:
- signing Invincible in NYC on November 7
- performing YRMW at MSG in September
- doing a radio interview about Invincible on October 26
 
You raise a good point, Hot Street. There was some promotion from MJ.
And, I can only speculate, but I think the promotion he undertook, was probably for ‘him’ as opposed to the album.

Those 30th anniversary concerts, were not just a money earner for him, but also proof he was still TV blockbuster material. The record signing, was proof he could still draw crowds like no other.

Apart from the lone mimed jokey performance of YRMW, there wasn’t anything specific for the Invincible album.

Anyway, I was no where near MJ or his camp, so it is speculation, but I think he may have been trying to prove his worth for other labels to approach him.

I could also speculate he may done the absolute minimum to ensure contractual obligations. I know, factually, George Michael, was contractually obligated to do certain promo for his ‘exit’ album with Sony.

Bu the way, I won’t derail this thread but I think George Michael handled his exit from Sony far far more smartly than Mj.
 
Thanks @MonkeyCheater, really great insight into the industry. More or less confirmed a lot of what I thought. But I didn't really consider a remix budget before. Could you give a rough idea of the sums involved?

I wonder if any YRMW club remixes will ever surface.
 
Hot_Street said:
thanks @MonkeyCheater
he did some promotion for Invincible:
- signing Invincible in NYC on November 7
- performing YRMW at MSG in September
- doing a radio interview about Invincible on October 26
Click to expand...
Michael Jackson also promoted that album when he gave the TRL interview to Carson Daly (from MTV), which was basically part of the whole signing event.
MonkeyCheater said:
You raise a good point, Hot Street. There was some promotion from MJ.
And, I can only speculate, but I think the promotion he undertook, was probably for ‘him’ as opposed to the album.
Click to expand...
Sony proposed the album signing event, and Michael Jackson accepted their idea.
 
R1chard said:
Thanks @MonkeyCheater, really great insight into the industry. More or less confirmed a lot of what I thought. But I didn't really consider a remix budget before. Could you give a rough idea of the sums involved?

I wonder if any YRMW club remixes will ever surface.
Click to expand...
Depends on the remixer.

It was really silly money sometimes, so there would be a lot of bulk buying - so you could have a big name mixer provide 10 mixes for 250k upfront plus royalties (but there sometimes wouldn’t be much differences in the mixes).

In relation to the budgeting for these, sometimes it got complicated….

You could have an act who would be bigger outside of their ‘home’ market and find that such an act had more demand for singles outside the home market. So, the ‘foreign’ markets would be asking for remixes and videos and the ‘home’ market would then have to decide if they would budget for this. It could be complicated because the business case for another single could exist in a foreign market, but the home market would not have a business case for it.

This is because of how the industry typically worked. If Mj is signed to the US as his home market, the US would take all profits from US sales and then a commission from the other foreign markets. So, the UK and other markets could have demands for more singles (with videos and mixes) but the US would have to decide if they would budget for it.

Now, where you have an album campaign laster longer in the foreign markets, that’s where things get complicated. You may find that foreign markets renegotiate special terms for the extra singles or even, in extreme cases, fund mixes and videos themselves.

I was not involved in the History campaign, but I suspect that the above set up may have prematurely ended the singles campaign outside of the US as there was such a big gulf in the success of the album between the US and other markets.

Also, it is because of this set up that sometimes, the scheduling of singles seems a bit inefficient or slow. It is not that the label does not know what it is doing, it just has to navigate complications like what I have detailed above.

Think about this…I am just speculating , but I could imagine that Sony European offices scream out for a video for Smile because they think they have a big Xmas 97 hit on their hands, but Sony US hold back as a negotiation tactic to have the other markets pick up the budget as they have no plans for a Smile single. Somewhere along the process, things just don’t work out and nothing materialises. Or maybe, the video and mixes does happen, but it takes longer than would be ideal (again, speculation but the SIM single was quite drawn out at the end and got a very late US release, maybe the US didn’t take the lead in budgeting for it?).

It is not a Sony sabotaging MJ issue, it is just a complication where there is a consistency issue in levels of international popularity. Quite a few acts suffer from it. This is where a good management team come in, a team who can coordinate and make arrangements - but I think MJ was missing this in the 90s and 00s.
 
Last edited:
MonkeyCheater said:
Hello all,

First time poster here, though I have been lurking around reading for awhile.
Anyway, seems as if this has become an Invincible centric thread.
Well, I was working in the music business (UK and Europe end) in 2001 and was marginally involved with Sony and the Invincible campaign. Time to clear up a lot of speculation and ideas (some of it quite bizarre):

Firstly, Sony UK/Europe planned and wanted a major campaign for the album.
However, MJ was signed to the US entity - who ultimately controlled video budgets, remix budgets and so forth.
In terms of actual singles releases, talk of plans for ten singles are, frankly, very silly.
At most any album, even major releases, back then would start with a three single kick off with supporting videos.
Case in point, look at Dangerous - the first three singles were the same everywhere as those were the three videos first delivered.

Because it was obvious Dangerous was going to be big within its first few months, budgets were allowed for a load of videos which were subsequently produced and different markets could then select at will the releases (hence the fourth single was different worldwide for Dangerous). This was not just the case with Dangerous, but also other major albums of the time like Def Leppard’s Adrenalize (same first three singles worldwide, then different fourth and fifth singles by markets thereafter making their individual choices). Of course, there are always exceptions but this was pretty much the way big album campaigns would work. A three single plan kick off, then wait and see….

Now that does not mean some vague planning for single sequences is not made beyond the first three singles, but they remain just that…vague (e.g.it was always planned that Heal the World would be a Christmas single).

Anyway, back to Invincible. The first sign the UK and rest of world noticed problems with the album campaign was the schedule of the special editions and the single disc History album. The UK led others in giving feedback that the releasing of all these albums was far too much in the same period as a new album launch but this feedback was ignored (which was really surprising giving that MJ was selling far more in Europe than in the US in the 90s).

Flags were then raised with YRMW as the first single. Now, to be clear Europe loved it as a single and were proved right as it was HUGE on radio. They were also happy with the video. BUT, there were no remixes provided. I was working in club promotions at the time, and we had been promised a load of mixes to service to clubs and add as bonus tracks for the singles, but none of it was provided.

Then came the second single, which was Cry. Now, again, Cry was the scheduled 2nd single in the US but becuase it bombed at radio testing the US moved on with Butterflies. But, Europe only had the video for Cry and needed a Xmas single, so had to go with it though no one had any faith in it, and sure enough it bombed on the charts.

Now, Sony UK worked Invincible hard in its first two months, huge press and media campaigns but the album was seriously underperforming. Though, in France, the album was huge so Europe as a whole was mixed on initial performance. BUT, there was real frustration with the US label - questions as to why there had been no coordinated international licensing of the 30th anniversary concerts, why no remixes, why a lousy 2nd video, why no video for Butterfly even though it was hitting big in the US etc…. But no real concrete indication of the root cause problems that were occurring.

And so, Europe planned for Unbreakable as the third single as this was meant to be the third video. The track was pushed out to urban music DJs to lay the ground for club servicing and then….then the rumours were confirmed to various Sony Offices - MJ had indeed advised the US firm he had wanted out, and he had determined that he would not promote Invincible.

There was a lot of anger, from European Sony offices at both the US office and MJ - e.g. the UK had spent a fortune on the album campaign to keep it alive in the hope that new singles and videos would be forthcoming and did not even break even on its expenses until 2003!!!!

By all accounts, Sony had spent the first few months of the Invincible campaign trying to keep the door open for MJ to work with them, but he just did not do so.

I really think MJ messed up with Invincible album.

And, even though this is my first post, I will say there are some really deluded fans on here blaming Sony and they need to get a reality check! I mean, how on Earth do you expect a record company to invest in an album where the artist is not just telling you he is leaving, but also refusing to promote the album?!? He didn’t even feature the Invincible album cover as part of his discography montage during the 30th anniversary concerts!

Sorry, but MJ messed up big time on Invincible - even if he had wanted to leave, he should not have made his declaration so forcibly. He should have said to Sony, ”guys, I am not sure if you are the label for me but let’s see how we both do with the next album and take it from there”. And he should have then been a collaborative partner helping with the promotion and having a realistic expectation of video budgets (I heard rumours he wanted twenty million for Unbreakable!).

Anyway, this has become Invincible centric but hopefully provides some direct insight into the single scheduling of the album.

Oh, one last note. Speechless was loved by the UK’s biggest radio station (Radio 2), who gave it some airplay in February 02 without servicing from the label. It led to the idea of releasing the track as a single in Europe without any video but the idea was scrapped after some discussion.
Click to expand...
Thank you, for this very eye opening portion of reading. Welcome to the forum, very insightful.

I do consider this pretty telling of how things were, and yes, I do consider it a sad state of affairs that MJ didn't power through and just deliver more content. But, I don't fault him for it either. If he wanted out of a job, I'd say that's his right like anyone else, to quit.

Meanwhile, this does illuminate that Sony as an entity is not to blame. They were not the devil and they did not ruin MJs life. They've been supportive otherwise. I still don't think Tommy Motolla is a great guy though, I'm not liable to trusting any suit. I simply respect the ones smart enough to stay out of their own way. And the US branch has just made some stupid decisions. That happens with a lot of companies, Sega and Nintendo of America work very differently to the Japanese branch. It depends on the oversight branch a lotta times, which is what you were saying.
 
MonkeyCheater said:
Now that does not mean some vague planning for single sequences is not made beyond the first three singles, but they remain just that…vague (e.g.it was always planned that Heal the World would be a Christmas single).
Click to expand...
This is probably why Give in To Me was quickly swapped out with Who Is It as the 5th single? Even though the former was much more far along than the latter.
 
@MonkeyCheater Do you have any insight on why MJ's last performances in 2002 haven't been broadcast widely? Aside from C-Span and the Dangerous show, on ABC also.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
@MonkeyCheater Do you have any insight on why MJ's last performances in 2002 haven't been broadcast widely? Aside from C-Span and the Dangerous show, on ABC also.
Click to expand...
Just to set expectations, I was a very tiny cog in the machine. My association with the music industry was just for a few years after uni and limited to club promotion in UK/Europe (tracks to clubs, and alignment with radio DJs and club media). But this, I guess, was quite an important of the promo campaign for a lot of acts in the UK and Europe in the 90s/00s so I was involved in the overall campaigns to some degree.

So, I have no insights to the big decisions made in the US for an American act like MJ.

However, I can share this. Whenever a big act was releasing an album, their management team would tour or at least engage with the main country offices of the label. They would give the heads up on touring plans, any other projects, collaborations, big tv show plans etc. And a lot of effort was made to align things together, like tv shows around tour schedules, or even press and media adverts etc…. Case in point, For One Night Only in 95 was purchased all over Europe for broadcast, because, I assume the label coordinated it.

In contrast, I remember Sony UK finding out about the 30th Anniversary shows only after the shows were announced by MJ himself. This was probably because, to my knowledge, the UK or any European office never had any such Mj management engagement for Invincible (the only album I was associated with). Maybe cause he was so big? I am not sure if that was so true in 2001.

Anyway, the point I make is that I would speculate that MJ and, maybe his management, were doing his own stuff and plans by 2002 without label involvement. Like the shows you reference.

This was certainly the case for the Bashir documentary - a UK production which had nothing to do with Sony UK.

To be clear, I have no feelings for Sony one way or another. But it is really odd that people blame Sony for this and that….One thing I can tell you for sure, if MJ had been engaging with Sony, I am quite certain the UK team would have put a stop to the Bashir documentary and I think that documentary, more than anything, derailed MJ.

By around March 2002, Sony were mostly not involved in MJ and his decisions. The exception being approaching him for legacy projects.

Again, I was very far from the decision making powers, but I got the impression there were big issues with MJ’s management (or lack of).
 
MonkeyCheater said:
Anyway, the point I make is that I would speculate that MJ and, maybe his management, were doing his own stuff and plans by 2002 without label involvement. Like the shows you reference.
Click to expand...
This sounds about right yeah. Definitely a lotta factors inclined him to favor Dangerous era material in that case.
 
MonkeyCheater said:
Now, to be clear Europe loved it (YRMW) as a single and were proved right as it was HUGE on radio. They were also happy with the video.
Click to expand...

MonkeyCheater said:
Oh, one last note. Speechless was loved by the UK’s biggest radio station (Radio 2), who gave it some airplay in February 02 without servicing from the label. It led to the idea of releasing the track as a single in Europe without any video
Click to expand...

MonkeyCheater said:
why no video for Butterfly even though it was hitting big in the US etc
Click to expand...
And these things are encouraging too. Maybe some of the people who insist that most of Invincible was unlistenable and that it only made sense not to promote it can be quiet as well. It really was just a casualty of the MJ Sony Divorce.
 
I don't understand all this issue about Invencible. It is a great album. For me the exception is only 2000 watts, too heavy for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top