Mister_Jay_Tee
Proud Member
It's confused to say the least. Not bad but definitely not Dangerous.
Too dramatic and self referential. MJ would never do that.
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
100 Worst Album Covers - HIStory - #7
- Thread starter MJalen
- Start date
1958MJJmoonwalker7
Applehead_MJ
ohh i see what youre saying. i just like the fact that everywhere you look you see michael
Michaelounet
Slave of Michael
I don't agree. The Invincible cover shows his face. It's a photo not a poorly printed statue on an ugly background.
The Michael cover is not so ugly. There is attention to detail. Certainly it's not very pretty and it's quite poorly organized but there is no color problem. There are elements that are pretty unlike the History cover.
I stay on my position. The coverage of History is the worst of all.