Axchi696 said:

Yeah, I do realize this. But the point is retail releases for You Rock My World and Butterflies would have resulted in bigger hits (and money) for Michael. This is not what Sony wanted. They wanted the album to flop so Mike couldn't make any money from it resulting in a fault on his loans. Sony want the full rights to the ATV catalogue and this was all part of their plan to purchase it. As it stands, Sony now have 75% of it. A successful album would have meant Mike could have afforded to pay off his loans from profits generated from sales. Again, that is not what Sony wanted. They want the ATV catalogue. Retail releases for You Rock My World and Butterflies were SCRAPPED because of this. As the success of One More Chance on the sales chart proves, Mike can still sell singles. Sony simply didn't want Invincible to succeed.

.
[Edited 12/11/06 8:53am]

Cloudbuster said:

you never spend money you haven't earned...mj did it to himself he do...got known else to blame...he did it to himself...yeahhhhhahhhh!!! -radiohead

Whatever. Just read the papers. They'll tell you the truth.

Cloudbuster said:

im not saying that what sony did was right...however, mj put himself in the situation were he was vulnerable. its just like a corporate takeover. sony played the business game smart...and mj allowed himself to loose a huge chunk of his assets because he "assumed" he could earn the money to cover his overspending...in essence, he spent money he hadn't earned.



and on top of that released a crap album.

IMHO

Axchi696 said:

To answer your previous questions, commercial releases were scheduled for Got 'Til It's Gone, Go Deep and Every Time but canceled because they didn't take off at radio. Together Again and I Get Lonely both had 2 CD-singles issued in the US. All For You had releases of the title track and Someone To Call My Lover.

Despite the fact that Beautiful Stranger and American Pie did not receive US commercial singles, EVERY single from Music, American Life and COADF *did*.

The CD single was NOT dead back in 2000-2001. Janet sold 140,000 copies of the 2-track All For You single in its first week alone. Jive didn't release a US maxi for Britney because Slave 4 U was not the gangbuster at radio they hoped it would be.
[Edited 12/11/06 8:59am]

Cloudbuster said:

Yeah, but to everyone outside the MJ fan camp, all of the stuff that we read here just seems like conspiracy theories and fam justifications. There are many people registered here that never EVER post on topics that deal with anything other than Michael Jackson, and lie dormant for weeks and months until they read something that they perceive as bashing ol' Mikey, then spring into action posting gobs and gobs of nonsense about how MJ is untouchable, saintly, and a beautiful soul.

And you want us to take their rantings and ravings as facts?

VoicesCarry said:

Don't believe that. Jive didn't release a single for "Slave 4 U" because they wanted the "Britney" CD to sell, the same way they didn't release singles for "I Want It That Way", "Ooops I Did It Again", and "You Drive Me Crazy" because they wanted to move more copies of the albums.

And, if in 2001, teh CD single was not as dead as it is in 2006, it was certainly on life support. All For You was #1 in the US for what, 7 or 8 weeks, and the single is only gold? Why was it such a huge hit? Wasn't sales. It was a huge radio hit.

But I digress. I just don't buy that Sony didn't issue YRMW as a commercial single so that the Invincible album would flop. Given the environment of the time, it was very much in line with what most of the other record labels were doing. Jennifer Lopez was a major Sony artist at the time, and most of her singles were not given US commercial releases. Did Sony also want them to flop?

sosgemini said:

Whether it's a crap album or not isn't the point. That's merely a matter of opinion. I'm sure you like stuff I would consider trash, so whatever.

Sony played dirty against Michael, and have been doing so since the mid 90s. THAT is the fucking point.
Michael can hardly be blamed for his label doing dodgy deals behind his back. Like Sony issuing Mike's financial records to the prosecution in the '05 trial.

In 2001 he delivered the album he was supposed to deliver. How the hell is that putting himself in a vulnerable position?
As far as he was concerned the album would (and should have, had Sony done what they were contracted to do; ie: promotion) cover the costs of his loans.
Sony got what they required, then stabbed him in the back.

Cloudbuster said:

BTW between 1998-2005 H100 was purely based on airplay and retail didnt play any part in it!!

so any release of it wont have matter even in the least
[Edited 12/11/06 9:16am]

Axchi696 said:

Yeah, and I get called deluded or just simply ignored whenever I try to tell the other side of what goes on concerning Mike.
You know, after doing actual research rather than relying on the media's biased agenda.

So yeah, whatever. Just read the papers. They'll tell you the truth.

asg said:

That's not true; they reformatted the Hot 100 to give more points to airplay, but single sales were given some points. Case in point: Mariah Carey's "Loverboy" was released in 2001. Before the single came out, the song was stuck somewhere in the middle of the charts; when the physical single came out, it was heavily discounted, and as a result of teh fans buying multiple copies, teh song shot up to #2. Wasn't because there was a major increase in airplay.

Madonna's Music was a big hit in 2000, but it wasn't a #1 radio hit. Why did it hit #1? It was a combination of single sales and airplay.

Cloudbuster said:

your not listening to me anymore...

Axchi696 said:

u better check ur sources but all i know is that until feb 2005 when each download or retail is equal to 2000 audience on airplay there was no input from single sales!!

back in 1998 the formula was 1 retail sale equal to 1000 audience!!!

mariah's hit was back b4 2000 when they discounted the single for 65cents to get it high up the charts!! that was the main reason for change in policy

also back in those days of retail a song couldnt chart in the H100 unless it was released as a retail single!!!!
[Edited 12/11/06 9:24am]

asg said:

If that were so then how did Mariah score a number 1 with Heartbreaker in 1999 when it peaked at no. 8 on the airplay chart?

sosgemini said:

No, you ain't listening.
Granted, the only way Mike can cover the costs of overspending is to generate more money. Hence the release of Invincible.
But the point is.... Sony didn't allow the album to generate much income because they wanted the ATV catalogue.
The result? Michael was forced to sell another 25% of his shares in ATV... WHICH IS WHAT SONY WANTED!

Can I put this any clearer?

.
[Edited 12/11/06 9:33am]

Cloudbuster said:

so maybe i got my dates wrong but there was a period when only airplay resulted in the H100 chart which changed feb 2005!!

why u think madonnas american life single only reached like #60 when she was #1 on retail

asg said:

Mariah's hit was released in 2001. It was charting in the mid-60s due to airplay alone; the week it was released, the single hit #2 due to the combination of sales and airplay.

I am 100% positive of this fact.

Another example. Madonna's "Die Another Day" was released in 2002. The song was a medium-sized airplay hit, yet once the single was released, it hit #8. For a Madonna song to hit the top 10 on airplay alone most likely will never happen in the US. She doesn't get any R&B airplay, which is a factor in Hot 100 success. Why did the song hit the top 10? Sales.

Retail's part became much smaller post-1998, but was not 0%. How did all of those American Idol songs hit #1? They were hits because of sales, not airplay. If a single has mediocre airplay, but has great sales, this will still push it up the charts. Especially when it competes with songs that have no physical single.

asg said:

American Life hit #37 due to a combination of sales and airplay. The song was only at #61 on the airplay chart.

The sales were very weak for the song, though. Singles were given points based on how many copies they'd sell. So even though Madonna was #2 in single sales, her single didn't sell very many copies. Hence, the song only hit #37 on the Hot 100. Without the physical single, the song wouldn't have risen much further past it's #90 position.

Axchi696 said:

I mean, ya know. The fact that MJ is a certifiable wack-job in the minds of most people AND the fact the album sucked couldn't have anything to do with the fact it was a spectacular flop, could it? He's lost ALOT of fans worldwide, and especially in the US.

alot.

I used to adore MJ. Even thru Dangerous I was a huge fan. I bought History, and Invincible. Heck, I will buy anything he puts out, still... in hopes that somehow, someway, the true spark of what used to be his genius will shine thru.

"Invincible" sounded like desperation to me. It wasn't anything trendsetting or trailblazing, either in sound or composition. It was product. It was purely an attempt for MJ to be/feel relevent in the modern music scene. It was pathetic and sad to watch him try to recreate his old greatness in the "You Rock My World" video. It saddened me to watch it because it was just a reminder of everything that Michael squandered, and everything that he did to himself.

Goofy conspiracy theories aren't going to alter the simple fact that most people who loved "Thriller", "Bad" and "Dangerous" now view MJ as a train-wreck gone off the deep end, and THAT is why "Invincible" flopped.

And guess what - - - - if he released an album tomorrow on par with "Invincible", with a different record company who wasn't trying to "sabotage" it, it would still flop. Because he's still a wack-job, and if the album is on par with "invicible", it would still suck.

Nothing Sony could have done would have helped polish this turd of an album, or help people forget what MJ has done to himself.

The most damaging thing in pop music is to be considered a joke, uncool, a has-been. Whether MJ fans want to acknowledge this or not, MJ has been all of these things for about a decade now.

Axchi696 said:

Point aside, Jive was never a label known for its CD-singles. Sony had consistently issued them for Michael.



It only went gold because it was limited to 500,000 copies by Virgin. Fucker sold OUT. This is also why it was only #1 on the sales chart for 4 weeks. Hot 100 Airplay #1 for only 2 weeks. Sales helped it stay #1 for 7 weeks on the Hot 100.



Sony had a history of supporting Michael's singles with commercial releases. YMRW goes top 10 on airplay only and they don't issue a maxi? It could have easily been another #1 for him.

For Jennifer they simply used payola at radio to get her singles up there.
[Edited 12/11/06 9:54am]

asg said:

This is NOT TRUE. The 1998 chart rule changes allowed singles that had no commercial release to chart for the first time. But songs with commercial singles AND airplay were at an advantage.

You saw how Mariah's Loverboy jumped from #60 to #2 in July 2001 due to the dumping of her 49-cent singles on the market.

Please stop. That cd sounded like trash.....and i dig Mj's music.

Fuck it. Again I'm just wasting my time here.

I think MJ threads are a no-go area for me from now on.

asg said:

No, there wasn't. The February 2005 changes simply allowed downloads to be counted for the first time.

Currently counted in the chart:
-Hot 100 Airplay
-Hot 100 Singles Sales
-Hot Digital Songs

albeit they are weighted differently.

Cloudbuster said:

Just answer this question: Do you think MJ's personal appearance/behavior has had an impact on his ability to sell records in the US and around the world? Do you think that if MJ released an AMAZING album tomorrow - as good as Bad, or Thriller - that the American public would be willing to embrace it, and him, even if it had the most amazing marketing plan ever devised?

NorthernLad said:

US? Who knows - Invincible sold 2 million copies when he was already considered a freakshow without a proper promo campaign.

But globally, yes. I mean, Numbers Ones was just the latest in his long line of Greatest Hits collections and just look at some of its sales around the world:

Australia 2x Platinum 140,000 copies sold
UK 4x Platinum 1,400,000 copies sold
USA Platinum 1,100,000 copies sold
Euro 3x Platinum 3,000,000 copies sold

I don't think he'd have trouble selling a new album, at least in the global market.

Cloudbuster said:

no, because it still boils down to not spending money you haven't earned (or wont earn)...mj allowed Sony to put him in that position. period. if he were smarter with his money he wouldnt have run the risk of defaulting. come on now...even if an album is stellar there is no guarantee that the audience will buy it. no matter how much sony did or did not throw into it...theres too many variables at play...stop trying to paint mj as a "victim"...he does enough of that on his own.

sosgemini said:

You´re right. But MJ probbaly didn´t expect such "flop". He was used to major succes. He probably coulnd´t imagine that HIS album could ever "fail" - I don´t like to use this word, cause compared to everyone else it was a big succes, but in MJ terms it was "a failure" - for him totally unexpected.

VoicesCarry said:

True, Europe still loves Michael.

Sony sabotaged... perhaps..
if they did try to it was probablyy to send Jackson into default on his loan to them, so he would forfeit his half of the ATV catalogue.

invincible as an album, was pretty bad by michael jackson standards....
but thats no reason for it not to sell well,
aold well for three monthes and it just went plopp,
only one video made?
is a ittle weid