Why He's a Thriller (Link)

[staywild23]

Yesterday I was gifted the March 19, 1984 issue of TIME magazine featuring a cover story about Michael. It was a really wonderful gift to receive yesterday of all days and the articles were pretty fascinating. As someone who was not alive during the height of Michael's popularity, I have always been so curious about how people thought of him and talked about him back then. There were, essentially, two separate articles in this issue.

The first is sort of...idk...just cultural commentary on Michael, I suppose. What struck me most was how it seems like the media NEVER knew how to talk about Michael. They absolutely did not know how to pin him down, categorize, or understand him. I went back and forth as I read this wondering if it was positive or not, but what I concluded is that the writer may not have even been sure about what they are trying to get across. I wouldn't say I necessarily learned anything about Michael here, but I just found the commentary so interesting. If anything, this all (to me) really speaks to his magic. Idk why I expected a traditional cover story like I might read about anyone else. I'm left with more questions and curiosities after reading this and I don't feel I know him any better, but somehow I love him even more. That was the brilliance of Michael I suppose.

The second is an interview with Joseph Jackson and that whole thing...eh, idk how I felt about it. Basically Joseph agreed to talk about Michael and give a tour of Hayvenhurst. At one point he knocks on Michael's door and Michael is hanging out with a friend (would love some idea of who this was lol) and Michael was very shy and it is described as an awkward exchange. Although when the author shakes Michael's hand, they describe it as feeling like a cloud, which is a description I love. Anyway, the vibe of Joseph interviewing about Michael when Michael didn't agree to an interview made me feel kind of gross. But would be curious what others think of that.

Anyway, I scanned the pages with my iphone and dropped a PDF into this Google folder: Time Cover Story

Here is the cover and some inside photos not included in the PDF:

https://imgur.com/a/iNYy2P1

https://imgur.com/a/kPYmIvJ

 

[zinniabooklover]

Yesterday I was gifted the March 19, 1984 issue of TIME magazine featuring a cover story about Michael. It was a really wonderful gift to receive yesterday of all days and the articles were pretty fascinating. As someone who was not alive during the height of Michael's popularity, I have always been so curious about how people thought of him and talked about him back then. There were, essentially, two separate articles in this issue.

Oh, it's THAT issue. I remember this from back in the day, didn't read it although heard a little bit about the content. I didn't used to read much about Michael and Time was pretty expensive to buy over here. So I didn't bother. This is going to be quite interesting.

The first is sort of...idk...just cultural commentary on Michael, I suppose. What struck me most was how it seems like the media NEVER knew how to talk about Michael. They absolutely did not know how to pin him down, categorize, or understand him. I went back and forth as I read this wondering if it was positive or not, but what I concluded is that the writer may not have even been sure about what they are trying to get across. I wouldn't say I necessarily learned anything about Michael here, but I just found the commentary so interesting. If anything, this all (to me) really speaks to his magic. Idk why I expected a traditional cover story like I might read about anyone else. I'm left with more questions and curiosities after reading this and I don't feel I know him any better, but somehow I love him even more. That was the brilliance of Michael I suppose.

You've got me really intrigued. I can't imagine what this is going to be like. I wonder whether the journalist that got the gig was actually a music journalist or from some other category. I wonder whether they wrote about him as a cultural phenomenon (which of course he was) rather than as an artist. That's the kind of thing magazines like Time would often do.

The second is an interview with Joseph Jackson and that whole thing...eh, idk how I felt about it. Basically Joseph agreed to talk about Michael and give a tour of Hayvenhurst. At one point he knocks on Michael's door and Michael is hanging out with a friend (would love some idea of who this was lol) and Michael was very shy and it is described as an awkward exchange. Although when the author shakes Michael's hand, they describe it as feeling like a cloud, which is a description I love. Anyway, the vibe of Joseph interviewing about Michael when Michael didn't agree to an interview made me feel kind of gross. But would be curious what others think of that.

Probably will leave this one for some other time. The whole thing sounds iffy and doesn't sit well with me. Think I'll focus on the other piece first.
I have a slightly more positive view of Joe after reading Moonwalk. He seems to have got some things right as the group's manager. But the whole thing is still tricky. To say the least!

Anyway, I scanned the pages with my iphone and dropped a PDF into this Google folder: Time Cover Story

Thank you for sharing.

 

[zinniabooklover]

The first is sort of...idk...just cultural commentary on Michael, I suppose. What struck me most was how it seems like the media NEVER knew how to talk about Michael. They absolutely did not know how to pin him down, categorize, or understand him. I went back and forth as I read this wondering if it was positive or not, but what I concluded is that the writer may not have even been sure about what they are trying to get across.

This.

 

[zinniabooklover]

OK, so I checked up on Jay Cocks and Denise Worrell. She is / was a showbiz correspondent and Jay Cocks was a critic for Time, Rolling Stone and ... I've forgotten who else but it was another big hitter. He went on to become a screenwriter. So that's great and everything but I still think the piece comes across as they don't really know what they want to say, don't really know where / how to place Michael. I think the point about most music critics being white is a good one (there is much that could be said about that but let's not go there just now). But, I dunno. It's not a bad piece but it is weird. Do they have any interest in Michael? Do they really know his music?

It's all very weird.

 

[staywild23]

^ yeah, it’s a frustrating article! And kind of bizarre/unfocused. I chose to credit the enigmatic nature of Michael’s aura for this writer apparently being confused lol. But that is honestly kind of just my fun take on it, because I’m sort of stunned by how strange it is. Though I did honestly enjoy it because I thought there were some interesting lines about him and honestly anything Michael related will get my attention. Do you know what I mean though about feeling like you aren’t any closer to understanding or knowing Michael? You would think a cover story would break that distance down a bit but it absolutely doesn’t lol.

 

[staywild23]

But, I dunno. It's not a bad piece but it is weird. Do they have any interest in Michael? Do they really know his music?

It's all very weird.

Unfortunately I feel like we could ask this about the vast majority of people who interviewed Michael and reported on him over the years

One thing I wonder is, given that they include the interview with Joseph and the awkward interaction with Michael, do you think there is any way they were trying to secure an interview and maybe Joseph implied it would happen, and when they didn’t get one they just had to create some kind of commentary? Idk. That seems like a weak excuse but who knows.

 

[zinniabooklover]

^ yeah, it’s a frustrating article! And kind of bizarre/unfocused. I chose to credit the enigmatic nature of Michael’s aura for this writer apparently being confused lol. But that is honestly kind of just my fun take on it, because I’m sort of stunned by how strange it is. Though I did honestly enjoy it because I thought there were some interesting lines about him and honestly anything Michael related will get my attention. Do you know what I mean though about feeling like you aren’t any closer to understanding or knowing Michael? You would think a cover story would break that distance down a bit but it absolutely doesn’t lol.

Def some good stuff in there but that just makes it all the more weird. They sort of get a handle on Michael but kinda don't. They sort of have a direction but go round in circles. They sort of give a rounded picture of this time in his life and yet the piece is really kind of splintered.

It's certainly one way to guarantee that people will go back and re-read your piece. Because I intend to do just that.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Unfortunately I feel like we could ask this about the vast majority of people who interviewed Michael and reported on him over the years

One thing I wonder is, given that they include the interview with Joseph and the awkward interaction with Michael, do you think there is any way they were trying to secure an interview and maybe Joseph implied it would happen, and when they didn’t get one they just had to create some kind of commentary? Idk. That seems like a weak excuse but who knows.

Interesting theory. I'll have to think about that. Have yet to read the Joe interview.

 

[filmandmusic]

Michael was introverted and shy (in some cases), people like that are viewed as weird, eccentric or not trust worthy generally.
His perceived awkward behavior in interviews maybe led to journalists getting bad or weird vibes which ultimately led to media bullying. Shy people get bullied especially when they don't act like other extraverted people which people from the media usually are.

 

[staywild23]

Michael was introverted and shy (in some cases), people like that are viewed as weird, eccentric or not trust worthy generally.
His perceived awkward behavior in interviews maybe led to journalists getting bad or weird vibes which ultimately led to media bullying. Shy people get bullied especially when they don't act like other extraverted people which people from the media usually are.

I honestly question if people actually found him weird, or if they just got frustrated and viewed him as uncooperative. It’s hard to know what to do with a person who is so aggressively themselves.

I know what you mean though. It makes me sad, but it’s true. I’m an extraverted person, but I have always been drawn to and closest to introverted people, and vice versa. I have always found shyness incredibly endearing. I actually find when I’m with more introverted people, I usually get quiet and they open up. This is one of the (many, many, many) reasons I wish I could have interviewed Michael. Assuming I’d keep my shit together, of course haha. Many years ago I did some freelance work for a music magazine in the US and I always loved interviewing artists the most. I honestly think a lot of writers and journalists have shit people skills and that is just as much a part of the problem, if not more of a problem, than interviewing or writing about a subject who doesn’t easily open up. I think about this all the time when I watch Michael’s interviews. I can’t stand thinking about how much better and thorough his interviews would have been had he been made to feel comfortable by the interviewers.

I feel like I’m rambling now. I just want to go back in time and interview Michael. Is that so wrong? Sigh.

 

[filmandmusic]

I can’t stand thinking about how much better and thorough his interviews would have been had he been made to feel comfortable by the interviewers.

Well he opened up once after feeling comfortable around a certain Bashir. He couldn't win.

Your interview though, that would have been something. You voice would squeal, your make up would run over your cheeks and every word you eventually can utter would end with the weirdest chuckle imaginable and in the end they'd have to carry you out on a stretcher. BUT since that is what he knew since growing up it might actually make him most comfortable

 

[filmandmusic]

BTW I just remembered MJ was interviewed in 1988 by Belgian tv after or before the Werchter concert. Nobody has ever heard or seen the interview because it was deemed unreleasable. Apparently MJ was very distraught that day and he couldn't stop crying so there was literally nothing they could use. This story comes from the interviewer himself when he mentioned it as one of his weirdest interviews he ever took.
Nothing negative was said about Michael btw, it was just un usable and he had no idea why Michael was so sad.

 

[staywild23]

Well he opened up once after feeling comfortable around a certain Bashir. He couldn't win.

Your interview though, that would have been something. You voice would squeal, your make up would run over your cheeks and every word you eventually can utter would end with the weirdest chuckle imaginable and in the end they'd have to carry you out on a stretcher. BUT since that is what he knew since growing up it might actually make him most comfortable

Hey now, I do have some dignity! I may have just fainted in the first 30 seconds and avoided all of the above embarrassment. You don’t know!

In reality, it probably would have been more like that girl at the Invincible signing asking Michael to marry her while in tears… but he would have said yes to me! Of this I am certain!

 

[staywild23]

BTW I just remembered MJ was interviewed in 1988 by Belgian tv after or before the Werchter concert. Nobody has ever heard or seen the interview because it was deemed unreleasable. Apparently MJ was very distraught that day and he couldn't stop crying so there was literally nothing they could use. This story comes from the interviewer himself when he mentioned it as one of his weirdest interviews he ever took.
Nothing negative was said about Michael btw, it was just un usable and he had no idea why Michael was so sad.

Omfg. Why oh why do I need this image in my head that is absolutely devastating. I am literally crying now. Poor Michael. I would gladly do that interview with him and befriend him forever. I can’t imagine what was going on that he broke down like that. My heart is aching.

 

[filmandmusic]

Hey now, I do have some dignity! I may have just fainted in the first 30 seconds and avoided all of the above embarrassment. You don’t know!

In reality, it probably would have been more like that girl at the Invincible signing asking Michael to marry her while in tears… but he would have said yes to me! Of this I am certain!

No just like at the signing session he wouldn't understand what you're asking him
But seriously that signing session is fantastic, love watching all the different emotions, especially the teary eyed people, I'm a sucker for those! There is so much love emitting from them!

 

[staywild23]

No just like at the signing session he wouldn't understand what you're asking him

I promise you, with me, he would understand perfectly

But seriously that signing session is fantastic, love watching all the different emotions, especially the teary eyed people, I'm a sucker for those! There is so much love emitting from them!

I know!! I’m a total sucker for all of those. Even though I feel kinda bad for Michael with how intensely people responded to him, and also I know not everyone enjoys things like this, I can’t get enough of his fans adoring him and him being so lovely. I love the video of him meeting with that fan in a zoo or something and she is crying and he hugs her and is so gentle and tells her to relax and asks if she’s ok I would not survive that moment if I were her lol

Question - how do you think you would respond if you met him? We know I would be a mess, but what about you? Calm, cold, and collected?

 

[filmandmusic]

@staywild23

Being the empath that he was I am sure Michael felt quite bad about seeing his fans in such states, he could only come across as distanced because he can't possibly give everyone equal attention. I can see this being a burden to carry for him like so many other things in his live. But then again he was used to it.

Well sine I am extremely introverted and shy (yes I am serious) I probably wouldn't even be there in the first place but if I had actually met him I probably would act distanced myself, probably almost unemotional but on the inside I would be shaking which he would probably notice anyway lol
I base this on how I reacted on 2 earlier reactions I had in my fandom. First was when my father revealed he had bought tickets for the HIStory tour for me and him and 2nd was when I heard the news MJ died. My reaction in both cases was calm and collected, I keep all my emotions for myself as hard as that is at times.

 

[staywild23]

@staywild23

Being the empath that he was I am sure Michael felt quite bad about seeing his fans in such states, he could only come across as distanced because he can't possibly give everyone equal attention. I can see this being a burden to carry for him like so many other things in his live. But then again he was used to it.

I am sure you’re completely right about this. I am not AT ALL comparing my experience to MJ’s, but I teach college and my students are constantly coming to me in crisis. Like falling completely apart and sharing heavy, heavy stuff. I am grateful for it because I want to support them because I love them, but when I first started it would mess me up carrying it around. It would crack me open a lot. But the longer I do it, the more I’ve gotten used to it and I can now handle providing all the emotional support they need while also maintaining some distance. It just took a lot of effort to get there. Again, not at all like MJ’s situation, but I guess I can relate on some small scale.

Well sine I am extremely introverted and shy (yes I am serious)

I’m not at all surprised by this, actually.

I probably wouldn't even be there in the first place

Aww lol

but if I had actually met him I probably would act distanced myself, probably almost unemotional but on the inside I would be shaking which he would probably notice anyway lol

Yeah, I feel like he could definitely read people this way!

I base this on how I reacted on 2 earlier reactions I had in my fandom. First was when my father revealed he had bought tickets for the HIStory tour for me and him and 2nd was when I heard the news MJ died. My reaction in both cases was calm and collected, I keep all my emotions for myself as hard as that is at times.

The way you describe yourself here is literally exactly like my husband. Being with me has kind of changed this a little because I’m a very emotional person and he can’t escape the conversations lol. But for real, this is exactly like him.

I feel I understand you better now, film. And I’m not at all surprised by any of this. I kinda sensed all of this about you. I really do understand it.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Michael was introverted and shy (in some cases), people like that aI re viewed as weird, eccentric or not trust worthy generally.

In the world of pop stars Michael really wasn't that weird or eccentric. I think the media chose to highlight that as a way of getting at him. I think that was a conscious choice on their part although I don't know exactly when it started. But pop and rock stars are supposed to be eccentric, they are almost expected to be a bit weird or different. It's not actually a big deal. Or it doesn't have to be. People expect film stars and actors to be down to earth (for the most part) but pop stars not so much. The media did struggle with his Christianity. If you're a pop star they don't really want you to be Christian and they certainly don't want you to be upfront about it. They don't understand it and they get embarrassed or feel uncomfortable.

If the media viewed him as untrustworthy that might have started once it was discovered that he (or Frank, or whoever it was) had planted false stories in the press. That was never going to end well, it was an nonsense idea and if it led to people not trusting Michael, well, I can understand why.

His perceived awkward behavior in interviews maybe led to journalists getting bad or weird vibes which ultimately led to media bullying. Shy people get bullied especially when they don't act like other extraverted people which people from the media usually are.

Michael was charming and had amazing charisma. I doubt the journalists who interviewed him were immune to this. He was polite and co-operative. He had tons of media experience under his belt. And the contrast between any perceived shyness and his pop star charisma is a good hook for a journalist to hang their piece on. It's a gift to them, he's done half their job for them. So they'd be fine with that.

An experienced journalist should be able to cope with an interviewee who is bored or unenthusiastic about being interviewed. It happens all the time. Michael was certainly bullied by the media (can't remember when that started) but I don't think it was happening at the time of this piece. He was on top of the world.

This piece was a feature not an interview. It was just assessing this amazing phenomenon. How did he get here, what on earth just hit us, have we ever seen anything like this before? Magazines like Time often run pieces like this. I don't think they work very well cos they often seem to pick a 'star' journalist who might not know much or have much interest in the person they are profiling. These type of pieces often fall a bit flat for me. This one is not too bad. It's pretty positive about Michael but it is unfocused. They don't seem to know what they want to say and that is odd.

I honestly question if people actually found him weird, or if they just got frustrated and viewed him as uncooperative. It’s hard to know what to do with a person who is so aggressively themselves.

I'm sure they didn't find him weird. I agree that it's possible that they viewed him as unco-operative even if he wasn't. Although, again, I'm not sure that would have been happening at this early stage. I'm sure that came later. Michael was super polite and charming. He was trained to be like that from Motown days but that also seemed to be his real personality. I think they found him difficult because he didn't do what was expected of him. He didn't tie groupies to the radiator, he didn't throw tv's out of hotel windows. He was open about God and prayer and faith - they really did not know how to cope with that. He was different but not really different enough to actually be weird.

He was, as you say, always himself. People, not just journalists, do seem to struggle with that.

This is one of the (many, many, many) reasons I wish I could have interviewed Michael.

Er, excuse me! Get in line, girl, lol.

I honestly think a lot of writers and journalists have shit people skills and that is just as much a part of the problem, if not more of a problem, than interviewing or writing about a subject who doesn’t easily open up. I think about this all the time when I watch Michael’s interviews. I can’t stand thinking about how much better and thorough his interviews would have been had he been made to feel comfortable by the interviewers.

I don't think it's crap people skills as such. I think there are a number of problems. Journalists and photographers are never given enough time with the artist so that makes their job really hard. There's no easy answer. If you're a top pop star you might have 10 or 20 interviews in a single day. So no-one is ever gonna get more than an hour and usually a lot less, maybe only 15 minutes. I think a much bigger problem is journalists who want the interviewee to be their mate. And if the pop star isn't up for that they get peeved and childish about it and write a negative piece. People don't always do their research beforehand. If they did a bit more prep and thought a bit more about how to break the ice with the person that would help. That's why I'd wanna start my interviews with Michael by talking about 1960's music. See how that goes and take it from there.

Another problem is journalists who forget that the reader doesn't care about them. So many journalists write a piece where you find out more about them than you do about the pop star. It's so annoying.

Tbf, none of this applies here cos it wasn't an interview. The quotes from Michael were taken from previous interviews he'd done.

I do remember reading this piece at the time. I read it in the library so I just read it once, didn't study it. But my reaction back then was the same as now. I was like, huh? It's a strange, strange piece.

 

[staywild23]

In the world of pop stars Michael really wasn't that weird or eccentric. I think the media chose to highlight that as a way of getting at him.

I totally agree with you! He really was actually a fairly traditional person lol. I mean, certainly fascinating, unique, etc. but not some total weirdo. But also since when is being a weirdo a bad thing?! Especially in the entertainment industry. Though I think you touched on that too.

But pop and rock stars are supposed to be eccentric, they are almost expected to be a bit weird or different. It's not actually a big deal. Or it doesn't have to be. People expect film stars and actors to be down to earth (for the most part) but pop stars not so much.

Yup, this is it lol. Totally agree with you! Though I never thought of it this way before.

If the media viewed him as untrustworthy that might have started once it was discovered that he (or Frank, or whoever it was) had planted false stories in the press. That was never going to end well, it was an nonsense idea and if it led to people not trusting Michael, well, I can understand why.

OH man, was this actually true? I always wondered if it was. I hate that.

Michael was charming and had amazing charisma. I doubt the journalists who interviewed him were immune to this. He was polite and co-operative. He had tons of media experience under his belt. And the contrast between any perceived shyness and his pop star charisma is a good hook for a journalist to hang their piece on. It's a gift to them, he's done half their job for them. So they'd be fine with that.

YES. I completely agree with you on this. He practically wrote the story for him just by the dichotomy of who he was!

I'm sure they didn't find him weird. I agree that it's possible that they viewed him as unco-operative even if he wasn't. Although, again, I'm not sure that would have been happening at this early stage. I'm sure that came later. Michael was super polite and charming.

He was trained to be like that from Motown days that but that also seemed to be his real personality. I think they found him difficult because he didn't do what was expected of him. He didn't tie groupies to the radiator, he didn't throw tv's out of hotel windows. He was open about God and prayer and faith - they really did not know how to cope with that. He was different but not really different enough to actually be weird.

He was, as you say, always himself. People, not just journalists, do seem to struggle with that.

Absolutely. I think this was his true personality, but also one he knew how to cultivate. I guess what I mean by aggressively himself was exactly what you mentioned about him being open about God and faith and stuff. He just wasn't worried about being cool, or uncool. He was just himself. He was openly super into animals, Disney, classical music, his faith, and he would even talk about crying, or being emotional about things. He wasn't really trying to be anyone other than who he was. I mean, yes, I think he was trying to create an image, but I don't think it was ever an insincere one.

Er, excuse me! Get in line, girl, lol.

LOL I knew that would get you

I don't think it's crap people skills as such. I think there are a number of problems. Journalists and photographers are never given enough time with the artist so that makes their job really hard. There's no easy answer. If you're a top pop star you might have 10 or 20 interviews in a single day. So no-one is ever gonna get more than an hour and usually a lot less, maybe only 15 minutes. I think a much bigger problem is journalists who want the interviewee to be their mate. And if the pop star isn't up for that they get peeved and childish about it and write a negative piece. People don't always do their research beforehand. If they did a bit more prep and thought a bit more about how to break the ice with the person that would help. That's why I'd wanna start my interviews with Michael by talking about 1960's music. See how that goes and take it from there.

Oh no, it's definitely not just a people skill issue. But we do see examples, like the Ebony Jet interview, where someone is just relaxed, respectful (not doting, either) and is just having a genuinely interesting conversation with Michael and he is obviously comfortable and just shares his thoughts. The Geraldo Rivera interview is similar. Just warmth, kindness, respect. Again, not doting either. The difference between those two interviews, as examples, vs. the Oprah interview, is night and day. I know you've never been a fan of Oprah, and I don't blame you, but a lot of people love her. The first time I saw that interview I was like what in the world? There doesn't seem to be any true empathy or interest coming from her end. I get that there was a time constraint, but there certainly was in the other interviews I mentioned too and they are both wonderfully respectful and treating him like a person (not just as personality, as MJ said).

And I know a lot of what I said could just be an Oprah thing, but I think there is plenty of evidence with other interviews, such as Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters, where he was really not treated with respect or dignity. But for sure, there are more factors at play than just personalities sucking lol. Time constraints, network expectations, audience expectations, their own careers, professional jealousy, interpersonal frustration (like what you described about people wanting to be his pal). Just interesting all around to examine this stuff.

 

[zinniabooklover]

Bumping this one since we are well into the run up to T40. I'm going to do a complete U-turn here. I read this Time article back in 1984 when it first came out and quite liked it but thought it was a bit unfocused. Read it again here, back in June, when @staywild23 kindly shared the link with us so we could see the original article. I had the same thoughts - decent enough piece but kind of unfocused.

Have just read it again and I love it. I think it's brilliant. Both as a useful snapshot for how Michael was being portrayed - at least some of the time - but also as a summation of his cultural and musical impact at that moment in time. The article was published in March 1984 so Thriller, as we now understand it, had become a real thing. It's easy to forget that when the album was first released, yes, it was very successful, but it had not yet become 'Thriller'. It wasn't this magnificent, unbelievable, iconic, cultural event that we now know it to be. That all came later, as the success of the album just carried on and on and on.

staywild has posted the link to the original article and I always enjoy seeing the actual page layout and so on for these archive pieces. But it's a little bit awkward to read, imo, so I'm posting a link to the text of the piece which I found easier to cope with.

Why He's a Thriller

Michael Jackson's songs, steps and sexy aura set a flashy beat for the decade

content.time.com

EDIT - @Ana_is_applehead @DangerousGal91 @LinLoveMJ

tagging you peeps in just in case you haven't seen this piece. You probably have but I'm extra cautious, lol.

 

[staywild23]

Bumping this one since we are well into the run up to T40. I'm going to do a complete U-turn here. I read this Time article back in 1984 when it first came out and quite liked it but thought it was a bit unfocused. Read it again here, back in June, when @staywild23 kindly shared the link with us so we could see the original article. I had the same thoughts - decent enough piece but kind of unfocused.

Have just read it again and I love it. I think it's brilliant.

Oh wow! Now I want to give it another read!

Both as a useful snapshot for how Michael was being portrayed - at least some of the time - but also as a summation of his cultural and musical impact at that moment in time. The article was published in March 1984 so Thriller, as we now understand it, had become a real thing. It's easy to forget that when the album was first released, yes, it was very successful, but it had not yet become 'Thriller'. It wasn't this magnificent, unbelievable, iconic, cultural event that we now know it to be. That all came later, as the success of the album just carried on and on and on.

Good point. This is what can be challenging with dipping into old publications. I think it can be hard to remember that cultural context is everything. Love this.

staywild has posted the link to the original article and I always enjoy seeing the actual page layout and so on for these archive pieces. But it's a little bit awkward to read, imo, so I'm posting a link to the text of the piece which I found easier to cope with.

Why He's a Thriller

Michael Jackson's songs, steps and sexy aura set a flashy beat for the decade

content.time.com

Thank you! I am happy that you found a way to share it that's easier

 

[zinniabooklover]

Sometimes the random madness works, lol.

Bumping for @DangerousGal91

Dunno if this has the Jackie Wilson excerpt that sw posted.

also @staywild23