Does MJ's lack of respect from serious music critics/rock press/music snobs bother you?

Psychoniff

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
933
Points
0
White male rock bias

The white male rock snob has always have an inert hatred towards and outright disdain for the Mj and his craft. So I was thinking why is this. Some have even brought up contemporaries like Madonna, Janet Jackson and Prince as being better examples of what 'pop' stars have achieved. They have dug deep into discrediting MJ in every possible way:

*He couldn't sing that well
He had a vocal range spanning 3.5/4 octaves, just ask his long term vocal coach, Seth Riggs. He vocal style allowed to sing in across different genres from hard rock(BI, DD, GIT), to up-tempo dance (WBSS, SC, JAM) to operatic pop (Childhood, ES). What they often get confused with lack of vocal range is power. OK so he never had the smooth baseline of a Barry White or Louis Armstrong, or the sandpaper grind of a David Ruffin, Otis Redding or Howlin' Wolf. Fine. But his vocal range was insane. What he lacked in power he made up for uncannily in versatility (he was a high tenor with a deep vibrato). Let's not forget, he was one the greatest child singers of all time who could belt like no other (Little Stevie comes close).

*Producers did the work for him
even though their beloved Elvis and the Beatles had epic producers themselves, in the Beatles success they had the greatest music producer in popular music history George martin. In Elvis's case he had two producers in Sam Philips and Steve Sholes. According to all producers who worked including Q he was very involved the process.

*He didn't write all his songs,
but wait, Elvis didn't write any what's more ironic is Elvis didn't compose, arrange or produce any his 18 #1 hits or any of the 100+ song he released. Elvis is the only one of the top ten artists on Rolling Stones list of #100 GAOAT to not do any of those things. MJ did all those things and yet he only got to #35 (unbelievable) and the Beatles like most groups and artists cover other peoples songs a making some of them them hits (72 at least). So what is so unique about MJ interpreting songs written by others like RWY, Thriller or MITM. He wrote, arranged and/either co-produced 9 of his 13 number #1 hits, 10 if you consider We Are the World and had many more top #40 hits, he was no cover artist.

*He couldn't play any instruments
Not true, take a look at the HIStory album credits. But even if he didn't all records, would that take way from the ideals the creativity in his head to birth classics like This Place Hotel, Billie Jean, or Earth Song? He dictated what he how wanted to the likes of Brad Buxer, Bill Botrell or Jerry Hay. These were his ideas.
 
Re: White male rock bias

I agree with you on the whole, but there are some things about your argument I want to point out.

*Producers did the work for him
even though their beloved Elvis and the Beatles had epic producers themselves, in the Beatles success they had the greatest music producer in popular music history George martin. In Elvis's case he had two producers in Sam Philips and Steve Sholes. According to all producers who worked including Q he was very involved the process.

I hate it when people think that Quincy did all the work for Michael when that's just bull. In saying that, you give off the feeling that George Martin did a lot of the work for The Beatles. While there is little doubt that George Martin was very involved with The Beatles music and I certainly don't want to downplay his significance, The Beatles were extremely involved in the creation of their music from beginning to end as well.


*He didn't write all his songs,
but wait, Elvis didn't write any what's more ironic is Elvis didn't compose, arrange or produce any his 18 #1 hits or any of the 100+ song he released. Elvis is the only one of the top ten artists on Rolling Stones list of #100 GAOAT to not do any of those things. MJ did all those things and yet he only got to #35 (unbelievable) and the Beatles like most groups and artists cover other peoples songs a making some of them them hits (72 at least). So what is so unique about MJ interpreting songs written by others like RWY, Thriller or MITM. He wrote, arranged and/either co-produced 9 of his 13 number #1 hits, 10 if you consider We Are the World and had many more top #40 hits, he was no cover artist.

I agree on the Elvis part. While I like many of his 50s Rock'n'Roll songs (maybe the one or two 60s song), I personally don't really think he is musically as amazing as people make him out to be. There's little doubt that he was very influential but I honestly see him having more influence on culture rather than music now.

The Beatles on the other hand did many covers early in their career, as was tradition in those days just like you mentioned. The difference with The Beatles is that John Lennon and Paul McCartney (and later on, George Harrison) wrote the vast majority of their songs - with Lennon and McCartney quickly becoming the most influential songwriting partnership of all time. This was almost unheard of in those days and, funnily enough, their most influential and groundbreaking songs are actually their own. Working with George Martin, they were very heavily involved with the arranging and composing of these songs.

They did a large number of covers but only 25 were actually released between 1962 and 1970. The rest were either performed during shows (be it live or radio shows) and were not released until the 1990s. The amount of songs that written, recorded and released by John Lennon and Paul McCartney? 180. Keep in mind this is not including George Harrison, who wrote many of The Beatles later songs, or Ringo Starr. Only reason I'm saying all of this is because I get the feeling that you are trying to discredit them somewhat, and I do apologise if this is not what you intended, but there is a reason why they are so highly regarded and have been for half a century.

I think the problem is is that Michael has always been called a pop star and while there are many pop stars who are very influential in their own works, stereotypically, they don't have much influence in their work. That is probably one reason why Michael is seen in this negative fashion. I hope that more footage gets out (be it leaked or by documentary, I don't really care just so long as its seen) of Michael working on his material in the studio. I remember when the Beat It demo went viral this time last year, that is the sort of stuff we need the general public to see. I'm hoping we get a documentary with Dangerous (that also plays on TV etc) that focuses on Michael's creative influence as an artist on Dangerous etc. Seeing the cultural impact is cool (like with Bad 25) but I feel seeing Michael as an artist is far more important atm.

I've seen a bit of a transition in how people see Michael as an artist after his death (though it's terrible he actually had to die for this happen). Funnily enough the 'white male rock' fans I know of personally actually highly regard Michael as an artist. If only everyone could be like that...
 
Last edited:
Re: White male rock bias

I think a lot of this criticism stems from simple ignorance or intolerance of other tastes and aesthetics than their own.

Rock fans of course will typically prefer powerhouse vocalists, but what type of singing one likes is a matter of presonal preference. If someone likes powerhouse singers or if someone likes their male singers have very masculine voices then Michael is certainly not their cup of tea, but that's just a preference, not objective criticism and has nothing to do with Michael's ability's as a vocalist. I have seen people sing his songs and often even very good vocalists struggle with his songs, so what does that tell us about Michael as a vocalist? Also besides the technical aspect of someone's vocals I love how unique and innovative Michael was in using his vocals. He often used it as percussion, he often embellished it with signature sounds (hiccups, gasps etc.), he often used it as a rhythmic instrument. And most importantly he was a very passionate singer. Not to mention his versatility as a vocalist. I literally never get bored of his singing. He also had a very unique, nice, soothing tone (both in speaking and singing). He did not need to be a powerhouse singer. His vocal style and vocal goals were different.
And BTW, we have many powerhouse singers, but how many people do we have who sing like Michael? I'm not talking about impersonators, who are just that - impersonators trying to mimic him. But I don't think there are many vocalists who use their voices and vocals as innovatively and in such unmistakebly signature ways as MJ did. Maybe James Brown.


Songwriting/producing: This of course stems from ignorance. Until this day some people believe the myth that basically MJ just sang on Quincy Jones albums. But it's such a basic ignorance. I mean it would be enough to look up the album credits. And BTW, out of all the artists about whom Psychoniff says are held in higher regard in those circles as MJ (Madonna, Janet, Prince) only Prince wrote more songs on his own than MJ (however, he had less hits). When you look up Madonna's or Janet's catalog you can see that most of their songs are co-written at best. Most of the time it was someone bringing a song idea to them and then they elaborated on that idea. While MJ wrote a lot of songs on his own from scratch (and - as Psychoniff pointed out - actually even if we just take his #1 hits, most of them were written solely by Michael). So I am not quite sure why people do not want to acknowledge his creativity - factually there is nothing to support the notion that he was just a puppet of some creative force behind him. I mean that is not even up to debate. There are facts.

The instruments argument never impressed me. Michael was not an instrumentalist, true. And he never claimed to be. He was a creative artist and a musician nevertheless. Otherwise how could he write masterpieces like Who Is It, Billie Jean, Earth Song, Heartbreak Hotel, TDCAU, WBSS etc etc etc? If Michael is not a musician and if he is not an artist then who wrote those songs? LOL. The means of how someone is writing a song are just that: means. Whether someone sits with a piano and composes a song note by note and writes a music sheet or whether someone creates a whole composition in his head and then sings it on a tape recorder is irrelevant from the POV of creativity. Just like it doesn't matter if you write a novel by using a typewriter or by using a pen as long as it's your idea.
 
Re: White male rock bias

*Producers did the work for him
even though their beloved Elvis and the Beatles had epic producers themselves, in the Beatles success they had the greatest music producer in popular music history George martin. In Elvis's case he had two producers in Sam Philips and Steve Sholes. According to all producers who worked including Q he was very involved the process.

This could be true to some extent. MJ used to divide his producers and made them work separately in different studios in order to compete with each other for increased results.
 
Re: White male rock bias

I agree with you on the whole, but there are some things about your argument I want to point out.



I hate it when people think that Quincy did all the work for Michael when that's just bull. In saying that, you give off the feeling that George Martin did a lot of the work for The Beatles. While there is little doubt that George Martin was very involved with The Beatles music and I certainly don't want to downplay his significance, The Beatles were extremely involved in the creation of their music from beginning to end as well.The Beatles on the other hand did many covers early in their career, as was tradition in those days just like you mentioned. The difference with The Beatles is that John Lennon and Paul McCartney (and later on, George Harrison) wrote the vast majority of their songs - with Lennon and McCartney quickly becoming the most influential songwriting partnership of all time. This was almost unheard of in those days and, funnily enough, their most influential and groundbreaking songs are actually their own. Working with George Martin, they were very heavily involved with the arranging and composing of these songs.They did a large number of covers but only 25 were actually released between 1962 and 1970. The rest were either performed during shows (be it live or radio shows) and were not released until the 1990s. The amount of songs that written, recorded and released by John Lennon and Paul McCartney? 180. Keep in mind this is not including George Harrison, who wrote many of The Beatles later songs, or Ringo Starr. Only reason I'm saying all of this is because I get the feeling that you are trying to discredit them somewhat, and I do apologise if this is not what you intended, but there is a reason why they are so highly regarded and have been for half a century.
I've seen a bit of a transition in how people see Michael as an artist after his death (though it's terrible he actually had to die for this happen). Funnily enough the 'white male rock' fans I know of personally actually highly regard Michael as an artist. If only everyone could be like that...

No no no! I respect the Beatles, very much sir. There was no such thing as a 'rock' band before them. I'm just pointing out that they also didn't writeALL the songs they sung. Which goes to show you how insane it is to say MJ didn't write ALL his songs as a reason to discredit is craft.

I completely agree! Before he died people would refer to him has a legend, superstar or megastar which is great but too generic. After his dead, people for most part have used phrases like 'genius', 'artist genius', 'creative genius' 'musical genius' which exactly what he was. He was manly lauded for commercial and cultural legacy before he died, but now thanks the likes of Joe Vogel and Susan Fast, we seek more understanding and appreciation of his musical/artistic/creative legacy.
 
Re: White male rock bias

No no no! I respect the Beatles, very much sir. There was no such thing as a 'rock' band before them. I'm just pointing out that they also didn't writeALL the songs they sung. Which goes to show you how insane it is to say MJ didn't write ALL his songs as a reason to discredit is craft.

I completely agree! Before he died people would refer to him has a legend, superstar or megastar which is great but too generic. After his dead, people for most part have used phrases like 'genius', 'artist genius', 'creative genius' 'musical genius' which exactly what he was. He was manly lauded for commercial and cultural legacy before he died, but now thanks the likes of Joe Vogel and Susan Fast, we seek more understanding and appreciation of his musical/artistic/creative legacy.

My bad, sorry for any misunderstanding :)

I don't think I've ever seen someone shit on MJ for not writing every single song in his catalogue. It'd be rather hard, I imagine, to find a successful artist who has completely written every single one of their song by themselves without the influence of others. I know of some artists who've at the very least co-written every song in their catalogue that wasn't a cover though.

I think it's more so the fact that people assume he didn't write those songs, assuming he was just a good singer and dancer but nothing more. I've seen people try to claim he didn't write many of his songs, using the Thriller album as an example, only to be surprised when people pointed Bad and beyond. I think it has something to do with the 'pop star stereotype' again.
 
Re: White male rock bias

I've seen people try to claim he didn't write many of his songs, using the Thriller album as an example, only to be surprised when people pointed Bad and beyond. I think it has something to do with the 'pop star stereotype' again.

Even if they use Thriller: what would Thriller be without Billie Jean (the song that pulled the album up to the #1 spot), Beat It and Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'? Its two #1 singles were written by Michael. Certainly Thriller is not the legendary album that it is because of Baby Be Mine. Its most important and most successful songs were written by Michael.
 
Re: White male rock bias

*He couldn't play any instruments
Not true, take a look at the HIStory album credits. But even if he didn't all records, would that take way from the ideals the creativity in his head to birth classics like This Place Hotel, Billie Jean, or Earth Song? He dictated what he how wanted to the likes of Brad Buxer, Bill Botrell or Jerry Hay. These were his ideas.

He doesn't need to play instruments when he can beatbox as a king. He doesn't need to play any instrument when he can make instrumental sounds out of his mouth. He made the beat for every song with his mouth and recorded every one of them.
 
Re: White male rock bias

It annoys me when some people try to take credit from Michael as a songwriter, just because he wasn't an instrumentalist. Being an instrumentalist doesn't automatically make someone a great songwriter. Someone could be the greatest multi-instrumentalist in the world, and still be a crap songwriter. And I challenge any instrumentalist to write and compose something as fantastic as Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, Heartbreak Hotel, Billie Jean, Smooth Criminal, Who Is It, They Don't Care About Us etc.
 
Re: White male rock bias

I'm not sure why we try and make out Michael Jackson was/is never lauded or advocated more for his work.

He is the biggest selling and most awarded artist ever, yet this is not enough for you? Do 100% of people are critics have to love every little thing he did.

Sometimes it's like you feel Michael was never acknowledged enough when in reality along with The Beatles and Elvis he is the most celebrated singer ever.
 
Re: White male rock bias

^ Not liking someone is one thing. Blatant falsehoods like "he did not write his songs" is another.
 
Re: White male rock bias

^ Not liking someone is one thing. Blatant falsehoods like "he did not write his songs" is another.

Yes but about two people think that. Probably the same two that believe man never landed on the moon.

It doesn't matter.
 
Re: White male rock bias

He doesn't need to play instruments when he can beatbox as a king. He doesn't need to play any instrument when he can make instrumental sounds out of his mouth. He made the beat for every song with his mouth and recorded every one of them.

Yes, he used his beat-boxing skills on Who Is It and Tabloid Junkie, two very great songs.
 
Re: White male rock bias

^ Not liking someone is one thing. Blatant falsehoods like "he did not write his songs" is another.

That's exactly it! Just cut the darn lies out. You don't have to like his music but please respect it.
 
Re: White male rock bias

Rolling Stone magazine is a clear example of having snob "music critics" who are so biased towards MJ to the point of ridicule. I suspect RS is clinging on the fame it had in 60's and 70's because it's not relevant anymore. The magazine made a top 50 MJ songs last year and there were a lot of J5 songs ranked higher than many of Michael's masterpieces he created in his adulthood, also they suggest many of the songs he did in Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad were better than the ones from the 90's and 2000's. It's not a secret they love the MJ/QJ partnership stating he didn't do anything good after the Bad album.

Another ridiculous slap to Michael was to rank his singing lower than Bob Dylan's. Mr. Dylan is a great lyricist and very talented musician but his vocal ability is quite limited. Stevie Wonder did a better impersonation of him than Bob himself when he was practicing his solo part in The We Are The World 20th Anniversary footage.

 
Re: White male rock bias

^ Rolling Stone is indeed joke and they never, I mean NEVER got what Michael is all about as an artist. Now they would praise Off The Wall as his best album but remember how they ignored it when it came out? Michael's management had to beg them to give Michael a cover story but they refused. Check out who made it on the cover of RS in 1979 and tell me if MJ and OTW is not a lot more influential than most, if not all of them: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/1979-rolling-stone-covers-20040511

So even if they now will praise at least Thriller and OTW - but at the time they did not even do that. Well, OK they praised Thriller just because even they could not go against such a strong tide.

Another thing that Joe Vogel pointed out is how many times they featured MJ on their cover:

  • John Lennon: 30
  • Mick Jagger: 29
  • Paul McCartney: 26
  • Bob Dylan: 22
  • Bono: 22
  • Bruce Springsteen: 22
  • Madonna: 20
  • Britney Spears: 13
  • Michael Jackson: 8 (two came after he died; one featured Paul McCartney as well)

So that is 6 covers in Michael's life and even from that one with McCartney and - I add to that - one another was actually a caricature, not a photo.

28852403-28852404-large.jpg


While you have people like Madonna featured 20 times, Britney 13 times...
 
Re: White male rock bias

While their treatment of Michael was shocking it should not be a surprise. Rolling Stone Magazine has always been out of touch. Read some of the original reviews of Led Zeppelins albums. In fact Rolling Stone have a habit of re writing history with updated reviews.
 
Re: White male rock bias

^ Rolling Stone is indeed joke and they never, I mean NEVER got what Michael is all about as an artist. Now they would praise Off The Wall as his best album but remember how they ignored it when it came out? Michael's management had to beg them to give Michael a cover story but they refused. Check out who made it on the cover of RS in 1979 and tell me if MJ and OTW is not a lot more influential than most, if not all of them: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/1979-rolling-stone-covers-20040511
Wow-good find. I looked at these and thought it would be a lot worse but I only saw a few that the artists aren't pretty iconic today. I forgot the 'Rose' came out that year. But what was "Artists for Safe Energy"?? Lol. Guess that was after the "China syndrome"-I don't remember that at all.


I add to that - one another was actually a caricature, not a photo.

28852403-28852404-large.jpg
1987-they just piled on Michael from all sides when BAD was coming out. It seems like every news piece or magazine cover was like this back then.
(Except good old Ebony -which I didn't know about til 20 yrs later).
 
Re: White male rock bias

Wow-good find. I looked at these and thought it would be a lot worse but I only saw a few that the artists aren't pretty iconic today. I forgot the 'Rose' came out that year. But what was "Artists for Safe Energy"?? Lol. Guess that was after the "China syndrome"-I don't remember that at all.

Maybe it's just me but I actually had to look up some of these names to see who they are. I mean the highlighted ones:

The Cars
Martin Sheen
Jimmy Buffett
Cheap Trick
James Taylor
Neil Young
The Blues Brothers (in black face?)
Musicians United For Safe Energy
Bette Midler
Robin Williams
Paul McCartney
The Village People
Bee Gees
Johnny Carson
Jon Voight

Joni Mitchell
Ted Nugent
The Eagles
The Doobie Brothers
Blondie
Richard Pryor
Rickie Lee Jones
Sissy Spacek

Michael & Cameron Douglas


The others I know, but I don't think most of them has the level of influence and relevance that Michael and OTW has today. Probably the only one among them who does is Paul McCartney (not as a solo artist but as a member of the Beatles). So I cannot see how Michael could not get a cover story for OTW. But then when I look at these names and covers it is clear that this is a very white oriented magazine and you rarely see a black man on its cover. (The only ones that year was Richard Pryor and some members of the Village People and the Doobie Brothers with other, white band members - but solo, only Richard Pryor).

And yeah, I think that 1987 cover was actually mocking him.

Even when I take away the fact that RS is rock oriented, I don't it's just that that they had against Michael. Madonna was not a rock artist either, but they always gave her more positive coverage. RS just never got Michael. Never.
 
Last edited:
Re: White male rock bias

They've always been biased in favour of white rock artists. I was never into Rolling Stone back in the day, but yeah Joe Vogel is spot on with that. Billboard is going the same way in respect to MJ.
 
Re: White male rock bias

They've always been biased in favour of white rock artists. I was never into Rolling Stone back in the day, but yeah Joe Vogel is spot on with that. Billboard is going the same way in respect to MJ.

Actually I have seen some really good articles about Michael on Billboard. For example this one: http://www.billboard.com/articles/c...hriller-at-30-how-one-album-changed-the-world

But I do not remember one good article on him by Rolling Stone. Even what is supposed to be "good" they always make some snide or underhanded remarks ruining the whole thing.
 
Re: White male rock bias

But I do not remember one good article on him by Rolling Stone. Even what is supposed to be "good" they always make some snide or underhanded remarks ruining the whole thing.
This made me wonder about the first time he appeared on the cover-"why does this eleven year old stay up past his bedtime?" Anybody ever read that article? I'm just curious.

(has to be 72 or 73)

9949415_MichaelJacksonRS1971.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: White male rock bias

Well that's good. At least they aren't totally biased.
 
Re: White male rock bias

I think it's racism mostly. He is not considered on the same plain as those white or of white rock.

It's been touched on before on these forums, that Michael Jackson is the presenter of material and not the creator. A mere entertainer. A song and dance man. A notion that there's a frivolity to it all, a triviality. An area that many great black artists often are pushed into. His music is considered immature on many levels. His commercial success is seen as mere selling out; a bland product pushed to the masses for money. These ideals are passed on through generations which the media has played a part in. And this narrative continues to live on today. People have said it already in here - the most frustrating one out there, to me - the myth that Michael Jackson didn't write much or any of his material! If you hear a lie often enough, you start to believe it.

Susan Fast talks about these kinds of attitudes in the Dangerous edition of the 33 1/3 series. I hope she won't mind me posting this extract:
"Jackson also suffered under the hipster idea that commercially successful music can't have much of a message (some rock music gets myseriously exempted from this) and if this is measured by degrees then Jacksons's OTT commerical success makes his about the least likely candidate for radical politics. in 1987, the influential scholar of African-American culture, Cornel West, called Jackson 'a nonoppositional instance of commodication in black skin that is becoming more and more like candy, more radical than McDonald's, but not by much;' like many, he had kinder things to say after Jackson died. These narratives in popular music are indicative of the extent to which people get invested in a particular idea of what counts as 'authentic', 'radical', or countercultural in popular music; his commercial success and his ability-and desire-to move among wholly incompatible musical genres gave him little credibility in these areas. In the case of Jackson, though, there are, of course, other complications. He made music that is incredibly accessible and so it's easy to stop at the surface, even though in most of his songs and short films there's an awful lot going on below; it takes some work to articulate what that even is, even if you immediately feel the depth of the music and his dancing in your soul. But in addition, many people got increasingly disappointed with or fightened by who Jackson appeared to be and so could no longer find a space through which to grasp his art as art. My argument is that it is precisely when he enters artistic maturity, marked, I think, with the making of Dangerous, that his aberrance becomes intolerable and that a critical blindness towards his music takes hold. Michael as a quirky crossover wunderkind, fabulous; inhabitiing adulthood as the sexy guy he was, with those looks, his love of kids and kid-like things, his failure to partner up, making blacker-sounding music and talking seriously about race, sex, and spiritual life: good God. We were kidding, we don't want him to grow up. Please give us our little boy back."
 
Re: White male rock bias

I only briefly gazed thru all this but... We are talking about bias being brought by publisist and magazines and such right? I don't think that the rock fan feels like that towards mj or a large majority of rock stars. Even rock fans like and respect mj. I am primarily a rock guy but MJ is the best of any platform and my rock buddy's respect the hell out of MJ. I think now day if someone does not like Mj it has nothing to do with taste of music but the personal BS that goes along with him. I wish he would have made a rock album it would have been the shit!
 
Re: White male rock bias

If you think RS are biased check out NME they are even worse

http://www.nme.com/reviews/michael-jackson/15336
Check out the first line in the paragraph and how slick and underhanded that was.

Check out the fact that Billie Jean is only at #18 on their list. Really? Looks who's at #1. What a joke.
http://www.nme.com/list/100-best-songs-of-the-1980s/266358/page/9

I'm not a rock fan, but I hadn't heard of about 95% of the songs or people on this list. And the first article-I couldn't get past the first couple of times they used Jxxxo. So unreadable.
 
Re: White male rock bias

I only briefly gazed thru all this but... We are talking about bias being brought by publisist and magazines and such right? I don't think that the rock fan feels like that towards mj or a large majority of rock stars. Even rock fans like and respect mj. I am primarily a rock guy but MJ is the best of any platform and my rock buddy's respect the hell out of MJ. I think now day if someone does not like Mj it has nothing to do with taste of music but the personal BS that goes along with him. I wish he would have made a rock album it would have been the shit!

Lots of rock stars themselves have talked glowingly of Michael-even referenced the Jackson 5 albums as the first albums they bought when they were kids.
Speaking of rock, has anybody bought this album?

Michael-Jackson-Thriller-Metal-Tribute.jpg
 
Re: White male rock bias

This made me wonder about the first time he appeared on the cover-"why does this eleven year old stay up past his bedtime?" Anybody ever read that article? I'm just curious.

(has to be 72 or 73)

9949415_MichaelJacksonRS1971.jpg

It says right there on the cover, April 29 1971 :p (Also see here)
 
Back
Top