Mister_Jay_Tee
Proud Member
Invincible Thread #44837
Let's just make it Invincible Monday!
It's easy for me to respect Invincible as MJ "canon". Even though it's not the most impressive, or even interesting, album he made (That honor belongs to whatever would've followed this album). I still see it as not only crafted well enough, but also entirely necessary. I don't see the appeal in changing, imagining Invincible changed, and that's for a few reasons. But the biggest one is simply this:
We would have always ended up receiving a record like this. Maybe not this material, tracklisting, length, or production style, sure. And that's many peoples grievances with the record, certainly. But the overall concept and direction of the album was totally fine, very smart. MJ didn't need to make another "classic" MJ record; the material in the outtakes was excellent, but would've not been appreciated in 2001. He did need to engage with the next century musically. I say he could've gone for something even newer than Darkchild, who was more a late 90s ensemble than anything. But electronic, digital music, it made sense and that can be heard in what was made.
And, making a ballad focused record also made sense. Plenty of evidence shows how had the allegations not happened, Dangerous' follow up would've been more "soft", more romantic in a way. That is easily possible, especially if his first marriage still takes place. Post HISTory I'd say it was fine for him to "return" to that, as most artists stay there, in a simple, comfortable familiarity even if they want to go on a different route. Fans in the 80s would've killed for a record of MJ ballads, that was his bread and butter. And even here there's so many different shades of love: Famial, Romantic, Agape. Love in bliss, and under siege. Yet there is even some anger, some spite and hatred here. But still?
Invincible is the softest record since Off The Wall, which is refreshing. It's Refreshing to hear he could still do it. There are shades of all his records here; a little Thriller, a little Bad, Dangerous, plenty of HIStory and BOTDF. But that return to Off The Wall is very endearing, very universally easy to connect with.
And even with his voice, you hear him emphasize beyond just "a falsetto". You hear a deeper tone than usual, so people can stop wondering about his "high pitched voice", just to see He's an artist. He's singing, crooning, rasping, all sorts of gritty soul tactics like James Brown or other such classics. But in a modern avenue that accentuates and possibly helps confuse those hearing this all too digital music, maybe perhaps it was too much to hear all at once.
But really, what you think of it depends on who you ask. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I do enjoy the album but I would've so enjoyed to hear what would've followed. And all of what was possible would've definitely been informed by what didn't and what also did work, on Invincible.
Let's just make it Invincible Monday!
It's easy for me to respect Invincible as MJ "canon". Even though it's not the most impressive, or even interesting, album he made (That honor belongs to whatever would've followed this album). I still see it as not only crafted well enough, but also entirely necessary. I don't see the appeal in changing, imagining Invincible changed, and that's for a few reasons. But the biggest one is simply this:
We would have always ended up receiving a record like this. Maybe not this material, tracklisting, length, or production style, sure. And that's many peoples grievances with the record, certainly. But the overall concept and direction of the album was totally fine, very smart. MJ didn't need to make another "classic" MJ record; the material in the outtakes was excellent, but would've not been appreciated in 2001. He did need to engage with the next century musically. I say he could've gone for something even newer than Darkchild, who was more a late 90s ensemble than anything. But electronic, digital music, it made sense and that can be heard in what was made.
And, making a ballad focused record also made sense. Plenty of evidence shows how had the allegations not happened, Dangerous' follow up would've been more "soft", more romantic in a way. That is easily possible, especially if his first marriage still takes place. Post HISTory I'd say it was fine for him to "return" to that, as most artists stay there, in a simple, comfortable familiarity even if they want to go on a different route. Fans in the 80s would've killed for a record of MJ ballads, that was his bread and butter. And even here there's so many different shades of love: Famial, Romantic, Agape. Love in bliss, and under siege. Yet there is even some anger, some spite and hatred here. But still?
Invincible is the softest record since Off The Wall, which is refreshing. It's Refreshing to hear he could still do it. There are shades of all his records here; a little Thriller, a little Bad, Dangerous, plenty of HIStory and BOTDF. But that return to Off The Wall is very endearing, very universally easy to connect with.
And even with his voice, you hear him emphasize beyond just "a falsetto". You hear a deeper tone than usual, so people can stop wondering about his "high pitched voice", just to see He's an artist. He's singing, crooning, rasping, all sorts of gritty soul tactics like James Brown or other such classics. But in a modern avenue that accentuates and possibly helps confuse those hearing this all too digital music, maybe perhaps it was too much to hear all at once.
But really, what you think of it depends on who you ask. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I do enjoy the album but I would've so enjoyed to hear what would've followed. And all of what was possible would've definitely been informed by what didn't and what also did work, on Invincible.
Last edited:
