JasonStar said:

You mean an album that is still very average but is promoted better to the Americans at least, if not the rest of the World just as Musicology was?

At least Musicology was cohesive, unlike Rave. And likewise, at least HiStory was cohesive, unlike Invincible.

"You Rock My World" is the only song on there that's worth its salt, if you ask me.

Moonbeam said:

Butterflies >>>>> YRMW

VoicesCarry said:

Butterflies

DANNII INTERLUDE:





Your PERRFECTTTION....

Moonbeam said:

Oh, no. We can never be married.

VoicesCarry said:

But we can VC!

VoicesCarry said:

But you rock my world, you know you did!

Haystack said:

I agree

you MJ fans crack me up...why is it always the record companies fault when an album doesn't sell?? If there is no buzz about an album/single NO ONE WILL FUCKING BUY IT!!!! bottom line true MJ fans would buy an album of him singing opera...the general public wants "Thriller 2" and not a grown man who sleeps with young boys!! he will never have the status he once had in the US...face it folks "Invincible" was not a good album in general and people did not buy...end of story.

Invincible was a good cd which was led by an average 1st single.
Butterflies which got extensive play on r&b stations across the country
was never promoted the way it should have been and there was no video for
it as well. Everyone knows that butterflies was one of mj's best songs since
tracks from the thriller album. Also heaven can wait, the break of dawn, and
the title track was good as well. The bottom line is when you are popular people
build you up to bring you down. It has happened to whitney houston and other
artists of the 80's as well.

its just not a good record. its ok, nothing more and nothing less. i lived in philly at the time of the release and there were signs, billboards, subway and bus stations, even buses, advertising the cd. his face was all over the city. sony stopped beating a dead horse, is all.

sallysassalot said:

There is more to it than that. Notice how his face was all over the place in the weeks leading up to the release, but as soon as it was released the promotion was cut off completely. It was MJ's last album with the label and he was leaving with the ATV catalogue. Think about it.

DarlingDiana said:

i don't doubt that sony is shady, just like every other label. if the record was good, though, it wouldn't have mattered. he's michael jackson...he doesn't need a continued massive ad campaign. sony made sure everyone and their grandmother knew michael jackson had a new cd called invincible coming out. just because they didn't want to continue advertising a dead record doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. after all, didn't the damn thing costs millions to make BEFORE promotion?

badujunkie said:

EXACTLY!! That's why the album doesn't work as a whole, there are too many songs on here that could have been left off. BUt I've noticed since HIStory, he's had the stickers on the cds touting 75.. 76..minutes of new music. I don't need it.

Just give us the best songs, man.

PurpleKnight said:

Pretty much spot on in every way. It annoys me when fans go overboard with conspiracy theories - just because they cant cope with the fact that the album isnm't perceived well by the general public.

Madonna fans have done it a little with American Life - apparently clear channel fucked that one up for her -not the fact that its the least commercial thing she's ever recorded. Mariah Carey Lambs - sorry fans - claimed Tommy Mottola orchestrated her slump a few years ago - despite the fact that she recorded 3 albums in a row that deserved to go straight into the bargain bin. And then we have Janet and Nipple gate - just another convenient peice of bad publicity to take the spotlight off the shitty Damita Jo (and they're still using it to excuse the even lamer 20.Y.O).

Invincible sunk because its not a great album. Some nice cuts for sure - but a few good songs does not a great album make. When you top it off with the embarassing tribute concert he did at the time - the self derivative video - the generic bland production - the distinct lack of decent pop songs, and his unmarketable image . Sony could have pumped millions in flogging it, but still wouldnt have converted that into justifiable sales.

Seriously sometimes as a fan, you have to be able to take a step back and understand people think differently than you. If you enjoy invincible - great, what are you losing if no one else does???

Shit records sell great and great records sell shit all the time. It's naive to think that the record company never has anything to do with it.

The Emancipation of Mimi is weak as shit. IMO Rainbow, Glitter and Charmbracelet were all superior. Yet those flop miserably and the former sells big time.

Damita Jo IMO is a million times better than All For You - even though the latter proved a huge hit for Janet.

This is the case with so many long-standing artists. I mean, how the fuck did the bland and lifeless 3121 top the US charts when many of his infinately superior, and in many cases more commercial albums in the 90s struggled to sell at all?

People will call it "musical climate" but that's bullshit. A great record is a great record whether it's 1995 or 2006. Of course it's down to the record company.

Now, I'm not defending Invincible. It was a so-so album and didn't deserve to sell much more than it did - which is why you won't find me as a huge MJ fan moaning about it's performance. But I do believe it was sabotaged nonetheless.

Minus butterflies, Whatever Happens and YRMW, the record is garbage!

lilgish said:

Not true.

Heaven Can Wait, Speechless and Unbreakable are also excellent.

and Break of Dawn, that's one of the best things Michael Jackson has ever done

DarlingDiana said:

What I like about the slow songs is....the old school feel.It's obvious that the producers were trying to re-capture the magic and feel of songs like "I Can't Help It" and "Lady In My Life".

"Break Of Dawn","Heaven Can Wait" and "Butterflies" are all reminscent of his 'Off The Wall' period.