Did Sony ever make MJ record songs he didn't want to?

[KB50MJ]

I just realized that a lot of record companies make their artists record certain songs. Like they say you have to have a love song, or a dance song, etc.

So I have a few questions:

1. Did Sony ever do this to Michael? Like tell him what kind of songs to create. Or did he have complete control?

2. What happens when an artist doesn't record what the company wants them to?

3. And if Michael had complete control, how does the record company decide who and who doesn't have control over the songs they make?

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

I actully wanna know this aswell.. this happens to alot of artist, esp in hip hop. the producers etc etc, gives them a beat then tell them what they think the public wanna hear and they have to reccord it that way.. and some artist have a very little input on what they think should make the final album cut. for ex, bone thugs n harmony recently released their new album called '' the worlds enemy'' and i am a big BTNH fan so i heard some of the unreleased cuts that was suppose to make it to the album, and those songs had the original bone thugs sound (hard,dark,mysterious,erie) but instead the album direction went toward the mainstreem public. it was a great album, but it could have been alot better.. but on point, when they interviewed one of the members (krayzie bone) he said that btnh had no creative freedom, and that their label (warner) choosed the song that were to appear on the album.. so i really wonder if every song was really mikes choice. it would be intresting to hear.

 

[144000]

there's not much that sony can do, when Michael was the writer of his own songs. Invincible had on it what he wanted, and that's why sony didn't want to promote it. so, yes, sony tried to excercise control over Michael, but the worst they could do to him, artistically is get his worst original compositions. and he didnt know how to write a bad song. so, they figured they'd just not promote the album. they had hoped he would write a song that nobody in the public would like, but no dice. as you can see, he never stopped having fans, despite what sony did to him.

 

[DuranDuran]

2. What happens when an artist doesn't record what the company wants them to?

Many acts have turned in albums that the labels have refused to release. This has happened with George Benson, Prince, Chaka Khan, and others. Neil Young was sued by his label once for turning in an album that they didn't feel was commercial. Motown told Stevie Wonder to remove a song from his last album (2005's A Time 2 Love) because they thought the song was sappy, but Stevie refused. The major label act has little say in what they put out, which is why people like Terence Trent D'Arby, The Eagles, & Prince went independent.

 

[michaelsson]

No. by that time in his career michael was in creative control, they decide whether or not they wanna promote it or not tho.

 

[The Lost Child]

In his book Bruce Swedien writes about how the $ony heads demanded to hear the record first before it comes to the sell. It was "HIStory". They all sat in quiet, listening to every single song and in the end they wasn't happy with what they heard. Michael then said: "I won't do this never again."
So I assume, they haven't much to say. Michael was in creative control on what was going on in the studio.

 

[if.it.aint.broke.break.it]

2. What happens when an artist doesn't record what the company wants them to?

They don't promote it and tell you to go back and do something commercially friendly.

An interesting story that relates to this is Bat Out Of Hell - Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman went to over 20 record labels to get them to release the album and all refused because it was too over-the-top. That album is pretty commercially viable - it must be to sell over 200 000 copies 33 years on per year as opposed to the 40mil I think it has so far.

Steinman and Meat Loaf had immense difficulty finding a record company willing to sign them. According to Meat Loaf's autobiography, the band spent most of 1975 writing and recording material, and two and a half years auditioning the record and being rejected.[6] Manager David Sonenberg jokes that they were creating record companies just so they could be rejected.[7] They performed the album live in 1976, with Steinman on piano, Meat Loaf singing, and sometimes Ellen Foley joining them for "Paradise". Steinman says that it was a "medley of the most brutal rejections you could imagine."[8] Meat Loaf "almost cracked" when CBS executive Clive Davis rejected the project.[4] The singer recounts the incident in his autobiography. Not only did Davis, according to Meat Loaf, say that "actors don't make records", the executive challenged Steinman's writing abilities and knowledge of rock music:

Do you know how to write a song? Do you know anything about writing? If you're going to write for records, it goes like this: A, B, C, B, C, C. I don't know what you're doing. You're doing A, D, F, G, B, D, C. You don't know how to write a song... Have you ever listened to pop music? Have you ever heard any rock-and-roll music... You should go downstairs when you leave here... and buy some rock-and-roll records.[9]

Same with U2's debut album - the label wouldn't sign them unless they dropped the drummer. The founder of the band!!! This is why the record labels need to die a corporate death - you can't whinge you're not selling records if the record sucks in the first place. Get some real talent, make it affordable, stop suing dead people on false leads and kids who can't afford $25 a record and maybe things might change.

 

[raz2911]

What about 'One More Chance' its a great song, but MJ didn't seem like he wanted it all that much.

 

[DuranDuran]

Same with U2's debut album - the label wouldn't sign them unless they dropped the drummer. The founder of the band!!! This is why the record labels need to die a corporate death - you can't whinge you're not selling records if the record sucks in the first place. Get some real talent, make it affordable, stop suing dead people on false leads and kids who can't afford $25 a record and maybe things might change.

This happened with The Beatles. George Martin said Pete Best wasn't any good, so Ringo joined the group. Actually the group was planning to get rid of Pete anyway, but that made it easier to sack him. As far as U2 goes, the label didn't think much of them and didn't think they were going anywhere, so the group managed to get a rarity in their contract, which was the ownership of their master tapes in exchange for a lower royalty rate. So in the long run, U2 won out.

 

[Love.him]

Interesting question. We know that Motown controlled what the Jackson 5 & other artists on its label recorded. It would be interesting to find out how much control Sony had. I heard that they interfered with the Invincible album, making Michael change some of the songs that eventually made the album. It seems that Sony was questioning Michael's ideas to the point of not letting him have creative control over the final product. Even Taraborelli states that in his book. I don't think that it went to the point of having Michael record songs he disliked though.

 

[MattyJam]

I think some fans wrongly assume that because of how legendary and popular Michael is, that he never had to face this kind of adversity from his label.

That is not true. Invincible as we know it, is not the album MJ originally handed over to Sony. That much is very well documented.

When Prince handed in Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic for Arista, he was told to go back and write "more R&B songs."

 

[144000]

I think some fans wrongly assume that because of how legendary and popular Michael is, that he never had to face this kind of adversity from his label.

That is not true. Invincible as we know it, is not the album MJ originally handed over to Sony. That much is very well documented.

When Prince handed in Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic for Arista, he was told to go back and write "more R&B songs."

actually, on the contrary. MJ's legendary status is the EXACT reason i believe sony gave him grief. i KNOW they were envious of him. but, as i said in my post...MJ's extraordinary talent covered his bases in a way sony wished was not possible. a by-the-seat-of-his-pants backup album would be any other artist's dream wish of an album to be able to make. and i believe sony made him pay for it, for the rest of his life, but, not surprisingly, they didn't want to let go of the genius 'commodity' that he was, and still is, to them.

but you're right....some fans do assume he had no trouble with the label, because of his legendary status. that's a tribute, in a twistingly unfortunate way, to his talent. not that his talent should be blamed..or, those fans...but it is important to understand.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

No but $ony hasnt released songs (What More Can I Give) or albums (1999 album before Invincible) that MJ had wanted released. MJ is the genius, who the F are they to say he cant release it? This is what caused some of MJs frustration at $ony!

 

[144000]

No but $ony hasnt released songs (What More Can I Give) or albums (1999 album before Invincible) that MJ had wanted released. MJ is the genius, who the F are they to say he cant release it? This is what caused some of MJs frustration at $ony!

i agree.

 

[DuranDuran]

No but $ony hasnt released songs (What More Can I Give) or albums (1999 album before Invincible) that MJ had wanted released. MJ is the genius, who the F are they to say he cant release it? This is what caused some of MJs frustration at $ony!

Everyone forgets that a recording act is just an employee of a company. You don't go to your job and tell the boss or supervisor what you want to happen. It's no different for the act. The record label is the boss and can do what they want, they don't have to listen to or do what the employee wants. The only difference is that a recording act is under a contract, and can't just quit and go somewhere else. Prince stopped recording new material for Warners and just gave them unreleased material during his last few years at the company so he could fufill his contract.

 

[144000]

Everyone forgets that a recording act is just an employee of a company. You don't go to your job and tell the boss or supervisor what you want to happen. It's no different for the act. The record label is the boss and can do what they want, they don't have to listen to or do what the employee wants. The only difference is that a recording act is under a contract, and can't just quit and go somewhere else. Prince stopped recording new material for Warners and just gave them unreleased material during his last few years at the company so he could fufill his contract.

that's not quite true, if an act gains great respectability. the act should be allowed to flourish. it isn't like other businesses..it shouldn't be..especially since it's a contract situation where creative control can be negotiated, when an artist gains more power. and, quite frankly, in any business, if an employee gains a lot of power, he can maneuver, in different ways. if a salesperson has a quirky way of operating, but is the best salesperson, the boss will find it very hard to argue. you can't squash creativity. that's abuse of power. $ony was the bad guy. it's easy to pretend like you're trying to be the boss, when in reality, you are powertripping because of envy. the boss needs his employees, as much as the employees need the boss..even in a non contract setting. the people who worked for Michael praised him as a boss who wanted his employees to be happy. obviously, his employees had a say. the relationship between boss and employee is tenuous at best. it takes care and special handling to do it right, or else, nobody can claim rights in the situation. it becomes a free for all, if there is abuse of any kind. these are human beings..not robots, and there has to be a give and take and a recognition of work accomplished, and a flow. respect is key. any 'boss' that doesn't recognize that, will go out of business.

 

[DuranDuran]

that's not quite true, if an act gains great respectability. the act should be allowed to flourish. it isn't like other businesses..it shouldn't be..especially since it's a contract situation where creative control can be negotiated, when an artist gains more power. and, quite frankly, in any business, if an employee gains a lot of power, he can maneuver, in different ways. if a salesperson has a quirky way of operating, but is the best salesperson, the boss will find it very hard to argue. you can't squash creativity. that's abuse of power. $ony was the bad guy. it's easy to pretend like you're trying to be the boss, when in reality, you are powertripping because of envy. the boss needs his employees, as much as the employees need the boss..even in a non contract setting. the people who worked for Michael praised him as a boss who wanted his employees to be happy. obviously, his employees had a say. the relationship between boss and employee is tenuous at best. it takes care and special handling to do it right, or else, nobody can claim rights in the situation. it becomes a free for all, if there is abuse of any kind. these are human beings..not robots, and there has to be a give and take and a recognition of work accomplished, and a flow. respect is key. any 'boss' that doesn't recognize that, will go out of business.

Overpriced Nike sneakers are made in sweatshops in Korea, where the employees are basically glorified slaves. Nike never went out of business. A great portion of chocolate is picked by unpaid slaves in Africa. The same for diamonds, which also mostly comes from Africa. A business doesn't have to be fair. That's not how capitalism works. If one person doesn't want to do what the employer wants, they can always get someone who will. The record business has never been fair or respected their employees. Look at all the old acts who are forced to do endless oldies tours or play at fairs to make a living or died broke. George Michael also had problems with Sony, and look what happened to him. They stopped putting out his music, wouldn't release him from his contract, and kept him in litigation for years. How do you think that Mike can buy the ATV catalogue or Paul McCartney can own Buddy Holly songs and showtunes? It's because the labels and/or publishing companies ripped off of the songwriters of the tunes contained in the catalogues. If the companies were fair, there wouldn't be anything to buy as the writers would own their material, unless the songwriters themselves sold their stuff. The acts would also own their master recordings. A few like Genesis, U2, & Motley Crue does, but most masters are owned by the record label.

 

[Dangerous Incorporated]

Everyone forgets that a recording act is just an employee of a company. You don't go to your job and tell the boss or supervisor what you want to happen. It's no different for the act. The record label is the boss and can do what they want, they don't have to listen to or do what the employee wants. The only difference is that a recording act is under a contract, and can't just quit and go somewhere else. Prince stopped recording new material for Warners and just gave them unreleased material during his last few years at the company so he could fufill his contract.

However Michael wasnt just another recording act. He owned half of Sony Publishing and was important to Sony. Michael could have done what Prince did (unreleased tracks) but he gave us Invincible. Later Michael did do what Prince did which he mentioned at Killer Thriller ("It's just another boxset really.") & that was The Ultimate Collection. With Thriller25 MJ signed a one off deal which was logical really to go with Sony.

However for MJs new album that he was working on before he died, he could have gone elsewhere. What he was to do we will never know.

But one thing we do know is that MJ was not just another song and dance act and deserved more respect from Sony. MJ was the genius that got himself to the status he had, so who are Sony to state what is good enough and what isnt ESPECIALLY when they go and do things such as sabotage promotions for an album they finally agree upon releasing.

 

[144000]

Overpriced Nike sneakers are made in sweatshops in Korea, where the employees are basically glorified slaves. Nike never went out of business. A great portion of chocolate is picked by unpaid slaves in Africa. The same for diamonds, which also mostly comes from Africa. A business doesn't have to be fair. That's not how capitalism works. If one person doesn't want to do what the employer wants, they can always get someone who will. The record business has never been fair or respected their employees. Look at all the old acts who are forced to do endless oldies tours or play at fairs to make a living or died broke. George Michael also had problems with Sony, and look what happened to him. They stopped putting out his music, wouldn't release him from his contract, and kept him in litigation for years. How do you think that Mike can buy the ATV catalogue or Paul McCartney can own Buddy Holly songs and showtunes? It's because the labels and/or publishing companies ripped off of the songwriters of the tunes contained in the catalogues. If the companies were fair, there wouldn't be anything to buy as the writers would own their material, unless the songwriters themselves sold their stuff. The acts would also own their master recordings. A few like Genesis, U2, & Motley Crue does, but most masters are owned by the record label.

the usa's economy is eroding. many people are going out of business..a lot of foreclosure... just because Nike isn't going out of business, immediately, doesn't mean that it's ok to behave that way. eventually the cows WILL come home to roost. look what happened to Enron. look what's happening to BP. corruption breeds destruction. how come nobody was able to buy MJ's songs, outside of MJ? cus MJ knew. he watched out for himself..so..people were after him. as for the George Michaels..does that make it right for the labels to act that way? don't be fooled. what you put out WILL come back to you.

 

[DuranDuran]

The Man

the usa's economy is eroding. many people are going out of business..a lot of foreclosure... just because Nike isn't going out of business, immediately, doesn't mean that it's ok to behave that way. eventually the cows WILL come home to roost. look what happened to Enron. look what's happening to BP. corruption breeds destruction. how come nobody was able to buy MJ's songs, outside of MJ? cus MJ knew. he watched out for himself..so..people were after him. as for the George Michaels..does that make it right for the labels to act that way? don't be fooled. what you put out WILL come back to you.

I didn't say the way a business operates is right, but that's the way it goes with capitalism. Unless you want some other system like socialism or communism, which doesn't work any better for the people at the bottom. A company can't really get rich without exploiting people. Look at Motown. Berry Gordy became a millionaire, when most of his acts made little or no money at all. A business only cares about making money and not anything else. If they can make money selling rubbish, they will and they do. The record labels only put out a lot of stuff that became popular, it gets overexposed & watered down and people tire of it and go on to the next thing. It happened all the time over the years whether it's Frank Sinatra style crooners, be-bop, folk, rockabilly, girl group pop, bossa nova, 1960s British Invasion acts, psychedelic rock, singer-songwriter, fusion jazz, funk, Bruce Springsteen/Bob Seger style Americana rock, disco, new wave, goth, light rock, hair rock, Latin freestyle, new jack swing, grunge, etc. If the performers don't like the way the labels are run, well don't sign up with them. They can't sign a contract and then complain about it later. They can form a union, strike, start their own recording industry, whatever. It has to be industry wide with all or at at least a high percentage of them including the superstars. The big acts is where most of the money is coming from. One or two acts complaining aren't going to make a difference when there's plently of others that are happy with what scraps the companies give them. I doubt someone like Carrie Underwood, 50 Cent, T.I., or Miley Cyrus is going to go up to The Man and say "I want better rights", "Yor contract sucks", or "Why do you sell a CD for $11.99 wholesale to the retailers when it only costs 5 cents to make?". Until that happens (and it never has), the labels are going to run the same way they always have.

 

[filmandmusic]

They made him record Invincible!

 

[1nn5]

I think this happens with the majority of singers, no ?

 

[SmoothCriminal1995]

I don't think he was made to record anything he didn't want to, although I don't think they were insistent on him working with certain artists. I remember reading that Tommy Mottola set up Cory Rooney and Mike together for She Was Lovin' Me, for example

 

[Mister_Jay_Tee]

In his book Bruce Swedien writes about how the $ony heads demanded to hear the record first before it comes to the sell. It was "HIStory". They all sat in quiet, listening to every single song and in the end they wasn't happy with what they heard. Michael then said: "I won't do this never again."
So I assume, they haven't much to say. Michael was in creative control on what was going on in the studio.

Is there more info on this story?

 

[MonkeyCheater]

I just realized that a lot of record companies make their artists record certain songs. Like they say you have to have a love song, or a dance song, etc.

So I have a few questions:

1. Did Sony ever do this to Michael? Like tell him what kind of songs to create. Or did he have complete control?

2. What happens when an artist doesn't record what the company wants them to?

3. And if Michael had complete control, how does the record company decide who and who doesn't have control over the songs they make?

The whole issue around artistic control is a grey area in almost every case. Even, when an act has full artistic control, the label will have the right to reject an album on several grounds (which is detrimental for both parties) . So, in reality, there is some to and fro when it comes to control and release of a final product. Acts, who are smart, will take the advice of their label and management and try to accommodate it because it is pretty foolish to get on the wrong side of your label (as MJ spectacularly did with Sony for the Invincible album).

So, to answer your question…

1) See above. I suspect Sony actually tolerated the inclusion of tracks on the Invincible album. As per some older threads I have written in, I was working with Sony UK/Europe for the Invincible campaign in a limited capacity, but recall there was unease about how bloated Invincible was and if it was possible to trim the album and save some tracks for’ b-sides’ of singles.

I recall hearing from one of the UK leads some feedback from the US label that it was the album MJ wanted and so it would not be trimmed. That was some ‘off the cuff’ commentary I recall but I see no reason to not believe it. Also, we did actually get a left over track (‘Shout’j for use as a bonus track for the Cry single. I can’t remember how we got ‘Shout’, but it was quite unexpected given MJ rarely allowed for ‘b side’ material.

So, at least with Invincible it seemed Mj got what he wanted, but given most reviews found the album too long that was not necessarily a good thing commercially speaking.

2) If they are smart, the artists listen to their label and take their advice. E.g, In 2000 Bon Jovi handed in their ‘comeback’ album, the label did not hear a hit so connected the band with some outside songwriters like Max Martin and the result… It’s My Life, a huge smash hit single.

If the artists wants to be stubborn, then they risk getting less support from their label with promotion (after all, you can’t expect a label to throw money into something they have little confidence in).

in extreme cases, the label will reject the album and the artist has two options: 1) plays ball and starts a new project with guidance from the label 2) have a stand off where both lose until there is some compromise on both sides. E.g, Def Leppard wanted a covers album to be released as part of their contractual count of studio albums but the label rejected this, but then an amicable agreement was reached where the covers album came out but only if the band agreed to release and support a new Best Of compilation.

3) As per above, an act may have complete artistic control like Prince, but as we all know, the label can ultimately turn down the album or minimise support for it.

I am inclined to think MJ did have a lot of control, how could he not, he was for a long time the biggest popstar on the planet. But, as with Invincible, that was no good thing.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Sony Music seemed to like the songs on the 'Invincible' album, considering what Sony Music's top executives stated right after listening to them in exclusive sneak previews of that album.

For example (in February, 2001):

About 'Heartbreaker':

"And that [song] was a shock to us, really. The production is futuristic. I mean, I hear a lot of music but that's something I've never ever heard. It's basically a new sound, and it's awesome. I think it's going to be the new trend in music because it's really that huge. I think it's even too new to be the first single off of the album. People will need a little time to be ready for that. The rhythm is so innovative. The man just created a new sound. We were all taken aback, looking at each other, like 'What is this!?'. If I had to describe it, the first thing that'd come to mind would be 'industrial RnB'. That song is going to change things in the way people produce music"

About 'Cry':

"That [ballad] is arguably one of the surest hits I've ever heard. In the [music] business, we call that a 'highway', meaning that the song is going to the top of the charts on a highway, fast and straight. I see it at the top for twenty weeks or so. It's that good. The voice of Michael is so beautiful. And the melody is original and beautiful. That song is going to be a very big hit"

Also, in another earlier, exclusive sneak preview of that album (in November, 2000), Michael Jackson played 6 songs (that eventually made the album) for Sony Music's top executives, and he stated that after listening to them they were walking on air.

 

[MonkeyCheater]

Sony Music seemed to like the songs on the 'Invincible' album, considering what Sony Music's top executives stated right after listening to them in exclusive sneak previews of that album.

For example (in February, 2001):

About 'Heartbreaker':

"And that [song] was a shock to us, really. The production is futuristic. I mean, I hear a lot of music but that's something I've never ever heard. It's basically a new sound, and it's awesome. I think it's going to be the new trend in music because it's really that huge. I think it's even too new to be the first single off of the album. People will need a little time to be ready for that. The rhythm is so innovative. The man just created a new sound. We were all taken aback, looking at each other, like 'What is this!?'. If I had to describe it, the first thing that'd come to mind would be 'industrial RnB'. That song is going to change things in the way people produce music"

About 'Cry':

"That [ballad] is arguably one of the surest hits I've ever heard. In the [music] business, we call that a 'highway', meaning that the song is going to the top of the charts on a highway, fast and straight. I see it at the top for twenty weeks or so. It's that good. The voice of Michael is so beautiful. And the melody is original and beautiful. That song is going to be a very big hit"

Also, in another earlier, exclusive sneak preview of that album (in November, 2000), Michael Jackson played 6 songs (that eventually made the album) for Sony Music's top executives, and he stated that after listening to them they were walking on air.

I am not sure how credible those quotes are (not questioning your citations itself, but rather the validity of the actual sources).

I can only comment on the UK label reaction. We thought the album was too bloated, and initial critical reviews were of a similar opinion. However, reaction from clubs and radio was great and that was not assumed, so a great relief.

But to one of your quotes above, the one relating to ‘Cry’….it does match with the direction set by the US label as they were quite determined for it to be the second single. The UK label hated it, and desperately wanted another single (as I have written about elsewhere). Ofcouse, we all know how ‘Cry’ turned out…

 

[mj_frenzy]

I am not sure how credible those quotes are (not questioning your citations itself, but rather the validity of the actual sources).

I can only comment on the UK label reaction. We thought the album was too bloated, and initial critical reviews were of a similar opinion. However, reaction from clubs and radio was great and that was not assumed, so a great relief.

But to one of your quotes above, the one relating to ‘Cry’….it does match with the direction set by the US label as they were quite determined for it to be the second single. The UK label hated it, and desperately wanted another single (as I have written about elsewhere). Ofcouse, we all know how ‘Cry’ turned out…

There was an 'Invincible' album preview (that took place in UK) weeks before its release.

Keith Waller (who was also there) reported that story.

UK Sony Music's top executives, music critics/journalists (such as, from The Independent), few privileged fans, and even Gloria Haydock herself (from the MJNI fan club) attended that album preview.

While the 'Invincible' album was being played from start to finish, the reaction in the room appeared to be positive (most of the attendees were nodding their heads to the beat, while others were even stunned by the new music of that album).

 

[Hot_Street]

Sony Music seemed to like the songs on the 'Invincible' album, considering what Sony Music's top executives stated right after listening to them in exclusive sneak previews of that album.

For example (in February, 2001):

About 'Heartbreaker':

"And that [song] was a shock to us, really. The production is futuristic. I mean, I hear a lot of music but that's something I've never ever heard. It's basically a new sound, and it's awesome. I think it's going to be the new trend in music because it's really that huge. I think it's even too new to be the first single off of the album. People will need a little time to be ready for that. The rhythm is so innovative. The man just created a new sound. We were all taken aback, looking at each other, like 'What is this!?'. If I had to describe it, the first thing that'd come to mind would be 'industrial RnB'. That song is going to change things in the way people produce music"

About 'Cry':

"That [ballad] is arguably one of the surest hits I've ever heard. In the [music] business, we call that a 'highway', meaning that the song is going to the top of the charts on a highway, fast and straight. I see it at the top for twenty weeks or so. It's that good. The voice of Michael is so beautiful. And the melody is original and beautiful. That song is going to be a very big hit"

Also, in another earlier, exclusive sneak preview of that album (in November, 2000), Michael Jackson played 6 songs (that eventually made the album) for Sony Music's top executives, and he stated that after listening to them they were walking on air.

I've known these quotes for over 20 years and in the case of Heartbreaker the statement is true: the sound was new back then: Dubstep

 

[Andymachine]

Well they let him release that terrible album ( Invincible) I do not know if someone can be "forced " to do a song or whatever. The questions on here tbf are really getting mundane and stupid. Move on.