Is "Invincible" as good as previous MJ's Albums ?

[Michael Jackson Moonwalk]

Some incredible music on Invincible - but his previous magic is hard to live up to!

I think Invincible is more of a 'grower' album, whereas previously you've had that instantaneous hit like with Thriller.

I know I've had to listen to songs on Invincible a few times before they 'get inside me' and that SO not the case with the other albums.

Favourite songs are on the record are, Unbreakable, Rock My World, You are my Life, Whatever Happens, Butterflies and Threatened (yeah, pretty much all of it!) :yes:

 

[MJultimatemusiclegen]

Michael got carried away with this album. The album is actually not overproduced, but it sounds so with normal headphones, or cheap speakers. Under grooves like Threatened there is a natural bass sound which the mechanic sounds lay of the top of, and if that is nice and loud then the track makes far more sense. The whole album is sound if heard properly, but it's technically far more advanced than it's predecessors and more extreeme frequencys are heard and the album makes little sense though cheap headphones or speakers. I think when michael made this album he forgot that not everyone has 10 foot speakers to blow your brains out. See when you play songs like billie jean through those, it's epic, you can feel the bass and everything, but, it's still Billie Jean. If you do this with an invincible track, so many other layers become aparent and they actually sound like a differen't set of songs. I mean songs like Privacy and 2000 watts suffer cause they arn't melodically strong for the common listener, but there sounds are unreal when heard properly. If you listen to privacy loud with proper sound balance, you will become angry and want to attack something, the lower harmonies become far more aparent etc. And this is the general problem with Invincible, it's too ambitious for the common listener. But heard properly the album makes so much more sense and to do this is has to be loud and through speakers with superb bass and clarity.
I think this is all it suffers from really, song like 'Scream' have the same problem actually, sounds awful through my TV, Blows my mind through proper speakers.

 

[Arklove]

Michael got carried away with this album. The album is actually not overproduced, but it sounds so with normal headphones, or cheap speakers. Under grooves like Threatened there is a natural bass sound which the mechanic sounds lay of the top of, and if that is nice and loud then the track makes far more sense. The whole album is sound if heard properly, but it's technically far more advanced than it's predecessors and more extreeme frequencys are heard and the album makes little sense though cheap headphones or speakers. I think when michael made this album he forgot that not everyone has 10 foot speakers to blow your brains out. See when you play songs like billie jean through those, it's epic, you can feel the bass and everything, but, it's still Billie Jean. If you do this with an invincible track, so many other layers become aparent and they actually sound like a differen't set of songs. I mean songs like Privacy and 2000 watts suffer cause they arn't melodically strong for the common listener, but there sounds are unreal when heard properly. If you listen to privacy loud with proper sound balance, you will become angry and want to attack something, the lower harmonies become far more aparent etc. And this is the general problem with Invincible, it's too ambitious for the common listener. But heard properly the album makes so much more sense and to do this is has to be loud and through speakers with superb bass and clarity.
I think this is all it suffers from really, song like 'Scream' have the same problem actually, sounds awful through my TV, Blows my mind through proper speakers.

Wow...I always love your posts.....Awesome description!

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Michael got carried away with this album. The album is actually not overproduced, but it sounds so with normal headphones, or cheap speakers. Under grooves like Threatened there is a natural bass sound which the mechanic sounds lay of the top of, and if that is nice and loud then the track makes far more sense. The whole album is sound if heard properly, but it's technically far more advanced than it's predecessors and more extreeme frequencys are heard and the album makes little sense though cheap headphones or speakers. I think when michael made this album he forgot that not everyone has 10 foot speakers to blow your brains out. See when you play songs like billie jean through those, it's epic, you can feel the bass and everything, but, it's still Billie Jean. If you do this with an invincible track, so many other layers become aparent and they actually sound like a differen't set of songs. I mean songs like Privacy and 2000 watts suffer cause they arn't melodically strong for the common listener, but there sounds are unreal when heard properly. If you listen to privacy loud with proper sound balance, you will become angry and want to attack something, the lower harmonies become far more aparent etc. And this is the general problem with Invincible, it's too ambitious for the common listener. But heard properly the album makes so much more sense and to do this is has to be loud and through speakers with superb bass and clarity.
I think this is all it suffers from really, song like 'Scream' have the same problem actually, sounds awful through my TV, Blows my mind through proper speakers.

That is sooo spot on. I even bought myself a pair of Sennheiser headphones. because Invincible just blows.my.mind. with a decent headset. There is SOO much layering in it, much more than even in Dangerous. And I love,love,love that album.

Even when I can- half the time I don't even bother playing MJ loud anymore through speakers (I don't have good speakers right now)- but through a decent headset- oh my goodness. All these harp runs, celli rising etc- I hear something incredible every.single.time.

 

[loka]

I agree...Invincible sounds awfull on youtube but Blows my mind through proper speakers.

Very strange ...I don't know or understand why ...perhaps we nedd some experts in Sound to explain...

 

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

I agree...Invincible sounds awfull on youtube but Blows my mind through proper speakers.

Very strange ...I don't know or understand why ...perhaps we nedd some experts in Sound to explain...

Not strange at all. YouTube compresses the sound when it uploads to allow slower and mid-range internet connection speeds to work with it (not dial-up, more like entry-level broadband) whereas on a CD it's 1411Kbps WAV files. In other words, it's the best audio standard available for a CD unless you're going for an SACD or HDCD or an MP3 rip as compared to a FLAC rip.

The best option thereafter is a BluSpec CD, SHM or vinyl - I can't think of any other formats that would beat it - Wikipedia should give you more info on those standards.

 

[loka]

Not strange at all. YouTube compresses the sound when it uploads to allow slower and mid-range internet connection speeds to work with it (not dial-up, more like entry-level broadband) whereas on a CD it's 1411Kbps WAV files. In other words, it's the best audio standard available for a CD unless you're going for an SACD or HDCD or an MP3 rip as compared to a FLAC rip.

The best option thereafter is a BluSpec CD, SHM or vinyl - I can't think of any other formats that would beat it - Wikipedia should give you more info on those standards.

thank you...very interesting.

One more question : I don't hear the same "gap" with Dangerous, Thriller, Bad, History or Thriller Tracks...

especially for the uptempo tracks.

I mean : if someone discovers Invincible on youtube...he won't like it as much as we like it.

he won't hear the same thing as we do...

 

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

thank you...very interesting.

One more question : I don't hear the same "gap" with Dangerous, Thriller, Bad, History or Thriller Tracks...

especially for the uptempo tracks.

I mean : if someone discovers Invincible on youtube...he won't like it as much as we like it.

he won't hear the same thing as we do...

You'll have to tell me what you mean by 'gap'.

If they like the album so much they'll probably buy it or at least get a high-quality rip of it - where I am there's a store selling it for less than $5 - that's like the price of a crap single. Alternatively, they may just not like it as some of us do, song-wise - I like some of the songs but the rest is kinda meh.

 

[Skizzorpuppy]

Keep in mind as well that Invincible was the first MJ Ablum created using digital (pro tools). MJ had always stated how he felt limited by technology, this time he wasn't and I think he was like a kid in a candy store. Unlimited tracks? Wow. He often said he was disappointed that he was never able to create WBSS they way he heard it in his head, I wonder what would have happened if he remade that song with newer tools? Wow.

 

[loka]

You'll have to tell me what you mean by 'gap'.

If they like the album so much they'll probably buy it or at least get a high-quality rip of it - where I am there's a store selling it for less than $5 - that's like the price of a crap single. Alternatively, they may just not like it as some of us do, song-wise - I like some of the songs but the rest is kinda meh.

the sound on youtube of invincible compared to the same sound on CD is worst than the sound of Dangerous on youtube compared to the same sound on CD...

That's what I meant...

 

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

the sound on youtube of invincible compared to the same sound on CD is worst than the sound of Dangerous on youtube compared to the same sound on CD...

That's what I meant...

Dangerous was recorded with vintage tools. Invincible went the modern route - the one that sounds cold and flat. Dangerous is much fuller and used the best a CD, cassette or record could at the time. Invincible abused the medium bad.

Keep in mind as well that Invincible was the first MJ Ablum created using digital (pro tools). MJ had always stated how he felt limited by technology, this time he wasn't and I think he was like a kid in a candy store. Unlimited tracks? Wow. He often said he was disappointed that he was never able to create WBSS they way he heard it in his head, I wonder what would have happened if he remade that song with newer tools? Wow.

Is that right? WBSS in a modern era; you reckon it might have come up WBSS2008 then?

 

[loka]

Dangerous was recorded with vintage tools. Invincible went the modern route - the one that sounds cold and flat. Dangerous is much fuller and used the best a CD, cassette or record could at the time. Invincible abused the medium bad.

then?

Ok...but when we hear it with proper speakers, there's no problem...at least for me...

 

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

Ok...but when we hear it with proper speakers, there's no problem...at least for me...

If you record with the medium MJ did for Invincible it's always gonna sound flatter compared to something as strong as Dangerous where the older tape medium was used - and ProTools can really bring a production down but also can take it up. I don't think anything before Invincible used ProTools - HIStory is a great example of stretching the production beyond unbelievable means, Invincible is not.

On Dangerous there are so many little sound elements whereas on Invincible I just don't hear as many if at all.

 

[LLCz]

Invincible>Dangerous>Bad=Thriller>Off the Wall=HIStory

 

[Eline15]

It's a nice album, but just a different style.

 

[starone_angel]

Yes, it is!

 

[Severus Snape]

I think Invincible is just as good as any of his other albums. My favourites are HIStory and Dangerous, though.

Invincible was definitely the best thing of 2001 (and the whole new decade). All of it's songs are great in their own little way, but my faves are:

Invincible
Threatened
Unbreakable
Heartbreaker
Don't Walk Away
Butterflies

It's hard to compare Michael's albums with each other because they are all so unique. For example, I prefer Invincible to Off the Wall, although I love both albums. I reckon the reason why is because I was born in the 90's and prefer a more pop sound to my songs. Invincible had a lot of great pop-y songs with awesome, cutting-edge sounding beats. I reckon the point I am trying to illustrate is that all of Michael's albums were amazing and that sometimes, preferences are based on generations or genre.

I would rather compare Invincible with other albums of its time. Unfortunately, none could even come close to it.

 

[loveforever]

My favorite ablums are also Dangerous and History, but Invincible was definitely the great album. Speechless is one of my all time favorite. IMO, Dangerous=history>Bad>Invincible>Thriller>off the wall

 

[dangerous2000watts]

I personally think the album was too trendy. Michael was pioneer for many years in many ways, but this album was a little bit normal. Threatened and Heartbreaker are great though.

 

[vadimtheundertaker]

I think this album is beautiful!!!

 

[anthontherun]

One issue that's mentioned constantly is that there are too many ballads. I don't necessarily agree that it's an issue although I wouldn't mind losing "The Lost Children."

For me, the bigger issue is that three of the 'rock' tracks ("Unbreakable," "Invincible," and "Threatened") sound so similar. Their hooks are practically identical.

But another thing that bothers me...the backing vocals are so loud and you can barely hear Michael. Songs like "Heaven Can Wait" and "Butterflies" sound like they're done by choirs with MJ occasionally stepping up and delivering a solo. One of the most appealing aspects of his previous albums (particularly Bad) is how he's so vocally prominent (even on "I Just Can't Stop Loving You") in the entirety of the track. The backing vocals on Invincible--minus a few tracks, like "You Rock My World" which is perfect other than the stupid Chris Tucker intro which needed to be confined to the video--just sound like very generic R&B/gospel vocals.

I also don't like the stutter effect used in "Threatened" and especially "Heartbreaker." The latter is a terrific song that just goes on way too long with a totally unnecessary false ending.

That said, it's more or less a very good album that just isn't nearly as consistent as his previous efforts. I might rank it higher than Off the Wall only because OTW does sound dated in parts and it's like half the length.

 

[sharon007]

I like Invincible its very different to Michaels other albums and the sound is totally new. This particular album was ahead of its time with all the new sounds on it. The tracks I like the most are Speechless, 2000 Watts, Dont Walk Away, You Rock My World and Whatever Happens

 

[azza]

I agree with a lot of what Drew & Tony said.It's far from his best.Off The Wall,Dangerous & HIStory are imo superior records.I think this for all the reasons mentioned,too synthetic,too many co-producers,too many tracks,the unreleased tracks were stronger etc...

That said I think it works much better as a 10-track album.This is my Invincible-

Unbreakable
Break Of Dawn
Heartbreaker
Butterflies
You Rock My World (without intro)
Heaven Can Wait
Speechless
Invincible
Whatever Happens
Threatened

I may swap Invincible for You Are My Life.The first 3 tracks are too the same.Why they were all bunched together is weird.

 

[classic]

I like Invincible its very different to Michaels other albums and the sound is totally new. This particular album was ahead of its time with all the new sounds on it. The tracks I like the most are Speechless, 2000 Watts, Dont Walk Away, You Rock My World and Whatever Happens

I agree with this post. Invincible got a bad rap because of media perception not because it was not a good album. Break of Dawn is also another great song from the CD.

I remember some radio morning hosts saying that they later realized that they were influenced by the media because when they first heard the CD they liked it but later ragged on it after the media kept talking about it being a failure.

It is also good that Invincible sounded different from his previous albums. I don't think Michael wanted to be stuck with a particular "sound."

 

[tricia70]

I voted yes. I think Invincible got a bum rap def. from the media and you know how powerful the media can be.

It was different from his other albums as it should. But having said that I remember some ppl saying it also had some r&b smooth retro sound on it too a la Thriller and OTW. So I think it had both old and very new futuristic sounds on it. Also, his vocals were out of this world!!

I think it could've been even better though if it didn't have that many ballads and I didn't care for Lost Children, Cry, and You are my Life (too formulaic).

This would be the ideal songs in the album not necessarily in that order

Unbreakable
Invincible
Break of Dawn
Heaven Can Wait
Butterflies
Speechless
YRMW
Heartbreaker
Privacy
2000 Watts
Don't Walk Away
Whatever Happens
Threatened

I love all those songs- just fantastic!

 

[fondero]

I voted yes, at first I didn't know what to think about it because it was different, but the more I listened to it, the more I liked it.

And Speechless... is ... is ... well, I'm speechless!

 

[Michael Jackson Moonwalk]

Michael got carried away with this album. The album is actually not overproduced, but it sounds so with normal headphones, or cheap speakers. Under grooves like Threatened there is a natural bass sound which the mechanic sounds lay of the top of, and if that is nice and loud then the track makes far more sense. The whole album is sound if heard properly, but it's technically far more advanced than it's predecessors and more extreeme frequencys are heard and the album makes little sense though cheap headphones or speakers. I think when michael made this album he forgot that not everyone has 10 foot speakers to blow your brains out. See when you play songs like billie jean through those, it's epic, you can feel the bass and everything, but, it's still Billie Jean. If you do this with an invincible track, so many other layers become aparent and they actually sound like a differen't set of songs. I mean songs like Privacy and 2000 watts suffer cause they arn't melodically strong for the common listener, but there sounds are unreal when heard properly. If you listen to privacy loud with proper sound balance, you will become angry and want to attack something, the lower harmonies become far more aparent etc. And this is the general problem with Invincible, it's too ambitious for the common listener. But heard properly the album makes so much more sense and to do this is has to be loud and through speakers with superb bass and clarity.
I think this is all it suffers from really, song like 'Scream' have the same problem actually, sounds awful through my TV, Blows my mind through proper speakers.

Wow - very interesting points, educational! I also heard Michael on the get.music interview saying; that the music sounds totally different on big speakers turned up loud, and you just don't get the same experience on the internet, cause you don't hear all the different sounds...so he definatley knew what he was creating and wanted it to be heard in the proper way. I guess he'd rather go all out and wait for people to catch up, then downgrade on his production to match the consensus' capcity! I really want to listen to the album properly with the best headset I can afford....:yes:

 

[Ms. Emme7]

Invincible may not be as strong as MJ's previous albums for many reasons, promotion, record label drama, etc... But what i do appreciate the most about Invincible are the ballads! ~~Heaven Can Wait, Break of Dawn and Butterflies. I think Invincible is a reflection of where MJ was emotionally and mentally. He seemed to be a bit more reflective, subtly moving away from the thrill pop dance numbers that people generally expect from him. To me, he seemed to be slowing it down just a tad to give us a bit more of his heart and understanding of L.O.V.E.

 

[loka]

Michael got carried away with this album. The album is actually not overproduced, but it sounds so with normal headphones, or cheap speakers. Under grooves like Threatened there is a natural bass sound which the mechanic sounds lay of the top of, and if that is nice and loud then the track makes far more sense. The whole album is sound if heard properly, but it's technically far more advanced than it's predecessors and more extreeme frequencys are heard and the album makes little sense though cheap headphones or speakers. I think when michael made this album he forgot that not everyone has 10 foot speakers to blow your brains out. See when you play songs like billie jean through those, it's epic, you can feel the bass and everything, but, it's still Billie Jean. If you do this with an invincible track, so many other layers become aparent and they actually sound like a differen't set of songs. I mean songs like Privacy and 2000 watts suffer cause they arn't melodically strong for the common listener, but there sounds are unreal when heard properly. If you listen to privacy loud with proper sound balance, you will become angry and want to attack something, the lower harmonies become far more aparent etc. And this is the general problem with Invincible, it's too ambitious for the common listener. But heard properly the album makes so much more sense and to do this is has to be loud and through speakers with superb bass and clarity.
I think this is all it suffers from really, song like 'Scream' have the same problem actually, sounds awful through my TV, Blows my mind through proper speakers.

I couldn't agree more...

Invincible is not an album that you can really appreciate with bad speakers...

but you will be amazed with good speakers...

MJ was known to listen the music very loud in Studio or at Home.

 

[di12]

I voted yes. I love that album. My favorite albums are Bad and Invincible.