:chillin: I read the entire thread prior to responding and what I honestly saw is nostalgia closing some minds towards the different path Michael chose with INVINCIBLE. He wasn't interested in creating sequels to THRILLER, because he didn't have to. He wasn't interested in cheating the fans by giving them copycat albums to keep them listening. If you want to listen to Thriller on repeat, do so (I do), but he wasn't required to keep making the same album over and over again.
I was fortunate to be along for the ride throughout his career from his Motown years to the end of his life and what I saw, what I enjoyed, what I loved about him was his desire to grow as an artist, to not be stagnant or become a caricature of himself.
INVINCIBLE isn't an album for those who chose to be stagnant listeners, not for those that didn't want Mike to mature (as a man and an artist). If he was still with us and had lived to be as old as his parents, he would still have sought CHANGE in his craft. I wish we could have witnessed that, could have been open minded to how an elderly Michael Jackson would have expressed himself musically, theatrically, books-wise, etc.
I love Thriller, always will, but I wholeheartedly loved the direction he took with INVINCIBLE. It isn't a "Thriller-lite" sequel and he didn't want it to be.