Latest on MJJC

New album to have more then 16 tracks?

michaeljojacksonfan

michaeljojacksonfan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,398
Points
0
Hey everyone i was wondering since every Michael album since Off The Wall (besides Thriller) has had more tracks then the previous album does this mean that it is very likely the new album will have more then 16 songs (the amount on Invincible)? I personally feel 16 songs is just too much. I think maybe 13-14 songs at the most would be ideal. What are your thoughts?
 
I hope he has more, because I can listen to him forever. The more the merrier in my opinion :D :flowers:
 
Two songs should be good. Fans would be happy with a snippet of an unfinished song.
 
michaeljojacksonfan said:
Hey everyone i was wondering since every Michael album since Off The Wall (besides Thriller) has had more tracks then the previous album does this mean that it is very likely the new album will have more then 16 songs (the amount on Invincible)? I personally feel 16 songs is just too much. I think maybe 13-14 songs at the most would be ideal. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

my thoughts are that the thread title is misleading!

and my taste would be 14.
 
Ass many as possible, thats MJ`s policy. so I think around 20 songs.

But I hope he keep it simple, maybe no more than15-16...
 
I seem to like the number 14.

Hell, I don't care if there are 9 tracks or 30 tracks. But think of it this way. Would you rather have 9 absolutely great tracks that could all have the potential to be singles.......or 30 tracks. Meaning some would be great, but others would be fillers.

See, I would like it either way, mostly because I appreciate everything that Michael does musically.
 
12 is perfect 6 up/mid tempos and 6 ballads but mix em up lol. Perfect
 
I'm waiting for Michael to release a double album. Not like HIStory. A double album of all new material. But only if it was up to the standard of Songs in the Key of Life or Sign 'O' the Times or something. I think Bad could've been the bomb if it was a double album as Michael intended. Because some of the out-takes are killer. But then on the other hand, something like Invincible could've going the other way. It had too much filler and could've been a tight little album if it was cut down to 9-11 tracks. If Mike has enough good material then I would die for a double album. But if it's a dodgy album full of out-takes from Akon's latest album or something. Then please. Less is more.
 
As long as they are amazing I don't care how many he chooses to put on. I definitely don't think he should fill space with too many "B-sides" It needs to be Hit after Hit...and we KNOW he is capable of that so i don't feel that's an unrealistic expectation.

A hidden track might be cool....especially if it's something completely different from what he usually does. Like maybe an unplugged, acoustic track that really showcases his vocals and/or musicianship.
 
Going by my own tastes...more than 14 and it seems like a CD will never end, especially if the songs themselves are kinda long/extended. I kinda like a CD that feels like it ends too soon cuz you find yourself playing it over and over. That also gives a person time to re-hear songs and have them grow on them cuz they're listening to the CD over and over. MJ makes lots of songs for each album so it might be kinda hard for him to settle for 10-12 songs but I think somewhere in there might be a sweet spot.

TwinkleDust said:
As long as they are amazing I don't care how many he chooses to put on. I definitely don't think he should fill space with too many "B-sides" It needs to be Hit after Hit...and we KNOW he is capable of that so i don't feel that's an unrealistic expectation.

A hidden track might be cool....especially if it's something completely different from what he usually does. Like maybe an unplugged, acoustic track that really showcases his vocals and/or musicianship.
Click to expand...

I like that idea, too. Yum!
 
If he has 17 killer songs that are all fantastic and could be single material and #1 hit songs, then why only release 10 ?

But better make the album with 10 songs that are all great instead of making the album with 17 songs and 7 of them are fillers!

The number of songs doesn't mean anything, but the quality of the songs does!
 
I think there will be a good number od songs.. Somewhere in the teens.. The more songs u have the more potential of hits u have.. (when he believes in them all)..

Lets say on average there is a 30% ratio of songs on an album making top 10.. If there is 10 songs, that means 3 songs will inter top 10.. Now if you have 17 songs that means 5 top 10 hits..

I think that is why Mike always has more tracks then the last album, to higher his chances of hits..
 
The thing is though, how can you define a filler.. for me, I love "She Drives Me Wild" and "Can't Let her Get Away" which are considered fillers for the Dangerous album. I listen to these more than songs like 'Who Is It' and 'Give Into Me' which are considered to be some of the best songs on that album. It all comes down to taste. If he released an album with 100 songs on, I know I would like the majority because I like MJ's style.

If it is to appeal to a new generation, then the album needs to be short, sweet and a killer in terms of number one material songs, which we all know he is capable of creating, OR completely groundbreaking, new and innovative, which is another trait of any MJ album and their acclaim.

The market is different now than it was 10 years ago, even one year ago, it is always changing. The number of songs Michael includes will be for a reason, it will be to take advantage of the 'current' market when the album is released.
 
Last edited:
Bob George said:
I'm waiting for Michael to release a double album. Not like HIStory. A double album of all new material. But only if it was up to the standard of Songs in the Key of Life or Sign 'O' the Times or something. I think Bad could've been the bomb if it was a double album as Michael intended. Because some of the out-takes are killer. But then on the other hand, something like Invincible could've going the other way. It had too much filler and could've been a tight little album if it was cut down to 9-11 tracks. If Mike has enough good material then I would die for a double album. But if it's a dodgy album full of out-takes from Akon's latest album or something. Then please. Less is more.
Click to expand...


Totally agree that if Invincible had been cut down to about 10-12 tracks, it would have been a much stronger album. As it is, it's difficult to get through it without hitting the forward button. MJ needs just 10-12 killer hits. No filler. And it's obvious that everyone, not just fans, love his dance/upbeat/disco numbers and are partial to the better ballads. Schmaltz like Smile and Childhood just doesn't work with non-fans. Neither do songs like 2000 watts, Privacy, Threatened, as you can't dance to them and it's just noise. Just IMHO :)

Less is more in this case, absolutely.
 
The Invincible bashing has gone on long enough in my opnion. I feel that if it was my work i wouldn't want to put out anymore albums. It is very soul destroying.
 
czechstar said:
Totally agree that if Invincible had been cut down to about 10-12 tracks, it would have been a much stronger album. As it is, it's difficult to get through it without hitting the forward button. MJ needs just 10-12 killer hits. No filler. And it's obvious that everyone, not just fans, love his dance/upbeat/disco numbers and are partial to the better ballads. Schmaltz like Smile and Childhood just doesn't work with non-fans. Neither do songs like 2000 watts, Privacy, Threatened, as you can't dance to them and it's just noise. Just IMHO :)

Less is more in this case, absolutely.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Smile and Childhood 'schmaltz'. Schmaltz is excessively sentimental art or music, something I would imagine reading in a tabloidesque article about the HIStory album. Wheras, fans know that 'Childhood' is his most personal song, and his fans love to listen to it for this reason, in addition, HIStory is known to be his most biographical piece, so... so what if it doesn't appeal to the general public.. It still sold 15 million copies and was bombarded with critical acclaim and reception.

You also state that; "songs like 2000 watts, Privacy, Threatened" are not worth putting on an album; "as you can't dance to them and it's just noise". This is a very dim and disjointed analysis of these wonderful songs, break each one down and understand each element, from conception to recording, these songs cannot be classed as "noise".

Of course MJ needs hits, and we have heard numerous times that his album will deliver as such, however, as I stated in a couple of posts above, 'filler' is a very loose term to analyse songs on an album. I stated that I personally LOVE the 'filler' tracks on Dangerous over some of the 'hit' songs. Michael may intend his entire new album to have hit after hit material, however, once released it could be reviewed by critics, public and fans alike to contain 'fillers', when in all probability this isn't Michael's conceived notion for the album.
 
I see him going the Dangerous route with 14. Considered how many tracks hes going through he could certainly do more but I'm pretty sure hes going with that many. I just have a gut instinct. The more he brings forth, the more gifts we receive from him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top