Looks like we have the classic Beatle vs. MJ fans. The fact of the matter is they were both extremely successful and its IMPOSSIBLE to gauge who had a larger impact on the music industry.
Both were vital in the proliferation of the music industry period. Without either one the music industry would have been set back in unknown quantities. MJ's 80s music is really really good whatever he did in his personal life has no impact on how good his music is.
Crap murderers seem to get more breaks then MJ does apparently if they turn over a new leaf after being in prison and start to "try" to make the world a better place or write a book. A lot of people will forgive and forget apparently, but superstars are held to standards far beyond the average person.
Was he guilty of his charges we will never know for sure period! So pretending that it must be so is stupid and pretending that it never happened is equally dumb. There is a chance for either to be true and that is the long and the short of it. Until we have hard evidence either way it's up in the air and will always be so similar to JFK's assassination which still sparks heated debate.
A lot of pop stars receive sales from their image. I don't find Michael Jackson's music to be all that groundbreaking and he has a voice that would never sell in today's market. Michael Jackson is a fad. No one will know his music a century from now just like no one will remember Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus. If people really knew he was going to sleep with children or even that he was going to turn white in the time when he was popular, he would have never gone as far as he has.
This is by far the most ignorant statement in the thread. To even try and compare a pioneer of black culture to two generic pop stars is laughable at best. You should think before you post.
This is by far the most ignorant statement in the thread. To even try and compare a pioneer of black culture to two generic pop stars is laughable at best. You should think before you post.
RIP Michael, you will be missed.
I agree with the comparison to Britney and Miley being untrue, but no one will remember his music in a hundred years. He hasn't 'pioneered' black culture and music as much as sustained it. Sure, he sustained it better than most, but so what? He didn't 'break any ground', what he did was good, but nothing new. It was great, generic sounds, and he had a great voice as well as being a great dancer. And please please don't take this as racist, but pioneer black culture he did not. After his many changes and alterations to his appearance, the black community essentially dropped him. If you'll look back you'll realize they've only started lauding him and singing his praises now that he's dead, much like many only said that The Dark Knight was better than the first because Heath Ledger was dead. A pioneer he is not, but you're right in saying he will be missed. Not by me, but he will be missed.
EDIT: Also, saying that was the most ignorant statement in this thread was both ignorant and untrue. sentimentGX4 was making no attack to you, yet you lashed out at him. Calm down. This is a free mind forum, where all opinions should be accepted. Of course there are ignorant statements here, but there are ignorant statements on both sides. Your post is one of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my custom set I'm working on, Nerastayn!
(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
How did curiosity kill a cat? (W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
People should definitely watch the Jon LaJoie video called "Michael Jackson is Dead" (YouTube it, definitely NSFW). It is, in my opinion, an accurate representation of sensationalist media. Everyone hated Michael Jackson, and now everyone is pretending like they didn't. If, 2 weeks ago, someone had made a joke about Michael Jackson dying because of some pedophelia related incident, no one would have been like "That's in bad taste" or "No! Michael Jackson is an amazing man, a pioneer of pop music who pushed black culture to the forefront!". It was to the point, as Lewis Black said, that you could use "Michael Jackson" as the punchline to ANY joke, and people would laugh.
Maybe, MAYBE had the media not ragged on him for years about the alleged molestation, about him changing his apperance so drastically, things would have happened differently; who knows? But I don't understand why everyone is now pretending they always loved him, because they didn't.
I agree with the comparison to Britney and Miley being untrue, but no one will remember his music in a hundred years. He hasn't 'pioneered' black culture and music as much as sustained it. Sure, he sustained it better than most, but so what? He didn't 'break any ground', what he did was good, but nothing new. It was great, generic sounds, and he had a great voice as well as being a great dancer. And please please don't take this as racist, but pioneer black culture he did not. After his many changes and alterations to his appearance, the black community essentially dropped him. If you'll look back you'll realize they've only started lauding him and singing his praises now that he's dead, much like many only said that The Dark Knight was better than the first because Heath Ledger was dead. A pioneer he is not, but you're right in saying he will be missed. Not by me, but he will be missed.
EDIT: Also, saying that was the most ignorant statement in this thread was both ignorant and untrue. sentimentGX4 was making no attack to you, yet you lashed out at him. Calm down. This is a free mind forum, where all opinions should be accepted. Of course there are ignorant statements here, but there are ignorant statements on both sides. Your post is one of them.
I'm not lashing out at him I'm teaching him. If I was to lash out I'd insult him.
How can you say with any certainty what will and will not be remembered in a century? What makes you an expert? You should make up your mind, you go from agreeing with me to calling me out in the same sentence.
What he did later in his life doesn't change what he accomplished when he was younger. People can disclaim MTV now all they want but back when he came out with Thriller MTV was a legitimate musical station that only played white music. He broke that wide open because of his popularity and allowed countless black artists to gain enough exposure to make more money and reach out to more people. You think blacks shun MJ? The BET music awards honored him the entire night, they completely redid the show. Why would every well known black celebrity go to the event knowing full well that was happening if they all shunned him. I'm definitely going to take that as a racist statement, because it is one.
The comparison to The Dark Knight makes no sense. Heath Ledger was heralded as a great actor long before it came out. His death didn't change the public perception of him or the movie. His performance made that movie better than the first, not his death.
I'm not lashing out at him I'm teaching him. If I was to lash out I'd insult him.
How can you say with any certainty what will and will not be remembered in a century? What makes you an expert? You should make up your mind, you go from agreeing with me to calling me out in the same sentence.
What he did later in his life doesn't change what he accomplished when he was younger. People can disclaim MTV now all they want but back when he came out with Thriller MTV was a legitimate musical station that only played white music. He broke that wide open because of his popularity and allowed countless black artists to gain enough exposure to make more money and reach out to more people. You think blacks shun MJ? The BET music awards honored him the entire night, they completely redid the show. Why would every well known black celebrity go to the event knowing full well that was happening if they all shunned him. I'm definitely going to take that as a racist statement, because it is one.
The comparison to The Dark Knight makes no sense. Heath Ledger was heralded as a great actor long before it came out. His death didn't change the public perception of him or the movie. His performance made that movie better than the first, not his death.
Accusatory remarks of ignorance and blatant character attack, that's lashing out, which seemed to me to be what you did.
I can't say with certainty, of course not. But he most likely, very likely, won't. Isaac Albéniz died in 1909, a hundred years ago, and no one remembers him. He was a prodigy and enigma, performing at the age of four. I can say with certainty that nearly a hundred percent of the American community has no idea he even existed. My mind was made up, I agreed with one of your points and disagreed with you later.
Blacks don't shun him now, I just said in my last post that now that he's dead they laud him and praise him, but a year ago that was quite the opposite. I wasn't clear or you misread my post. Also, explain to me how that in and of itself is racist in any way? I'm not attacking the African American community at all, and not bigotry at all.
I was using the Dark Knight as an example, because people have a need to make the dead feel better. Heath Ledger died and all of a sudden millions and millions went to see the Dark Knight. That would've happened anyway, but you can't tell me his death didn't contribute to the interest and buzz about the show. Like what happened with it, people now realize that Michael all of a sudden isn't a bad guy, and that he was 'a revolutionary to the pop industry'. Like a previous poster said, if a week ago you said you were a Michael Jackson fan you would've been laughed at.
EDIT: You were teaching him? Hah. Saying it was the most ignorant statement on the thread and saying his view was laughable. Teaching that is not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my custom set I'm working on, Nerastayn!
(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
How did curiosity kill a cat? (W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
Accusatory remarks of ignorance and blatant character attack, that's lashing out, which seemed to me to be what you did.
I can't say with certainty, of course not. But he most likely, very likely, won't. Isaac Albéniz died in 1909, a hundred years ago, and no one remembers him. He was a prodigy and enigma, performing at the age of four. I can say with certainty that nearly a hundred percent of the American community has no idea he even existed. My mind was made up, I agreed with one of your points and disagreed with you later.
Blacks don't shun him now, I just said in my last post that now that he's dead they laud him and praise him, but a year ago that was quite the opposite. I wasn't clear or you misread my post. Also, explain to me how that in and of itself is racist in any way? I'm not attacking the African American community at all, and not bigotry at all.
I was using the Dark Knight as an example, because people have a need to make the dead feel better. Heath Ledger died and all of a sudden millions and millions went to see the Dark Knight. That would've happened anyway, but you can't tell me his death didn't contribute to the interest and buzz about the show. Like what happened with it, people now realize that Michael all of a sudden isn't a bad guy, and that he was 'a revolutionary to the pop industry'. Like a previous poster said, if a week ago you said you were a Michael Jackson fan you would've been laughed at.
EDIT: You were teaching him? Hah. Saying it was the most ignorant statement on the thread and saying his view was laughable. Teaching that is not.
When did I attack the guy's character? I told him he made an uninformed post. I don't know how that can be turned into a defamation of character accusation, but you sure did try and pull it off.
And that proves any point how? Would he be put in the same league as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart? Doubtful. I can name a bunch of random pianist from the late 19th century but that's not going to make my point any stronger.
I took that as a racist statement because you are assuming something you have no idea on. Plus you were the one to even bring it up as being one in the first place, so that's how I could think it was. You keep bringing up things that I don't mention and have no relevance to the argument, I didn't call you a bigot nor insinuate that you were one. Why defend yourself then?
Sure his death brought more attention to the movie. That doesn't make any difference on the quality of the film! You claimed his death made the movie better than the first. Which is so ridiculous of a claim that it's not even worth trying to convince you otherwise.
The teaching came in when i told him to think before he posts. You should try it too, it can avoid these pointless debates in the future.
Heath Ledger was not the only reason people went to see The Dark Knight, either. It publicized the movie, to be sure, but the movie towers over a lot of others whether you know that or not.
Additionally, that was a very ensemble movie - Heath Ledger's performance was very good indeed, but it was presented as an absolute and worked towards the whole, which just happened to be one of the greatest movies of my lifetime.
More on-topic, I think there's a misguided defense when people like MJ die, and it goes something like this every time: "Why should the guy get any respect/adoration/love just because he died?"
While it's a valid defense, it's used far too often as an attack. The simple fact is, if he didn't affect you, no one's asking you to paying respects. Hell, no one's asking you to pay respects anyways.
However, he affected many, many people in a positive way (pre-1990's Michael), and so this is an odd time when nostalgia and sadness kind of go hand-in-hand as a lot of people realize they've lost a piece of their childhood. Too many people here are too young to understand the profound positive cultural impact that he had (myself included, for the most part)... so instead most of them take the incomplete picture they have and force it on people as though it's a valid, encompassing story. It's like seeing 10 cards in a spoiler and proclaiming the whole set sucks.
People who are fans of MJ or are grieving his death are very much aware of the child molestation accusations, and I don't think very many will vouch for that era of his life. There is no need to use what might be the most played-out and unoriginal attack in the modern era of celebrities for the sole purpose of damaging someone's legacy - he's already done that plenty well, and there are about a million news outlets that have done it before and with better effect.
This is more appropriately - for those with common decency, that is - a time to mourn the loss of an icon and a hero to many.
While I have no doubt hundreds will troll through every imaginable mention of his name and blast idiocy in the direction of anyone who will listen, again - no one's asking you to be sad or pay your respects. Just let the people who care about this cope with it as they may, and then history will, in due time, remember the man as he was.
He was only acquitted the first time after he negotiated a $22 million cash settlement with the plaintiff. The settlement definitely included that the plaintiff would drop the case. The charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence only after the plaintiff refused to cooperate with the police. How is this the same as being acquitted in an actual trial with all the evidence?
I'm a skeptic of this "peter pan" complex. Celebrities are often making up diseases for themselves or finding obscure existent ones to justify cosmetic surgery or to advance their personal interests. I'm sure Paris Hilton discovered she had claustrophobia after being put in prison and consulting multiple psychologists despite riding elevators her entire life.
So being denied a childhood gives a grown adult the right to share a bed with children? There's loopholes in your logic.
A lot of pop stars receive sales from their image. I don't find Michael Jackson's music to be all that groundbreaking and he has a voice that would never sell in today's market. Michael Jackson is a fad. No one will know his music a century from now just like no one will remember Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus. If people really knew he was going to sleep with children or even that he was going to turn white in the time when he was popular, he would have never gone as far as he has.
Were you even alive in the eighties bro? he was huge from 1973 until 1997.
not just famous huge. on mtv every day at least 3 times.
true, he did diddle some kids.
but your saying he will be forgetten
he still a nutjob, but i loveed him with all my heart until 1997 ( first trial)
However that trial was faked. if you look it up on wiki, the kids dad druged his son and tapereorded him saying he was touched.
he wanted mikes cash
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If Flavor text was true, I'd put sculpting steel
on people's braces.
Again, the span of Jackson's fame is beyond The Beatles, his album success is greater, and the quality of performance is, by most critics, considered to be of an uncomparable quality. 'Little more need be said' pretty much is the fact that there is nothing to say, as your claim is unreasonable with no avenues with which to make such a claim.
Also, saying that the Jackson 5 was about 5 people, divided 20% of the fame to each, isn't realistic.
I'm not a Jackson fan, I probably like 2 songs out of his entire career, but to say that other artists have the kind of success or fame is to just ignore the facts that pertain to how musical success is deemed and achieved.
The Beatles are widely considered to be the most succesful artists of all time. They have sold more albums and singles than any other artist. Also, the extent of the beatlemania is unparalleled to this date.
To give you an example, the Beatles released an album called 1 in 2000, more than thirty years after the band broke up. It soared to the top of the charts worldwide and was certified Diamond (11x Platinum, that's eleven million units shipped) on the United States. It was also the number one best-selling album in the United States in all of 2001, beating artists who then were at their peak, like the Backstreet Boys and Limp Bizkit. I really doubt a release by MJ will reach such heights 30 years from now, even if somehow the music market begins to stabilize.
Michael Jackson's influence and fame are extremely overarching, but sorry, he's still number two.
Look,
I like Tom Cruise movies, even though in real life he is a bit of a flake, and might have some issues with opressing women. The movies, like Mission Imp. 1 and 3, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, all pretty good, watchable.
BUT THE GUY is a weirdo, and I wouldn't let my kids sleep over at his house.
I loved Thriller, I loved We are the World, I loved Smooth Criminal and Man in the Mirror, etc.
MJ's music was great.
You have to understand that he did NOT invent a new music...Stevie Wonder, Al Green, Little Richie, etc. THEY madeit posible for MJ to do what he did...MJ only did it like 50 times bigger, flashier, and made more money at it.
But look at those photos. THE GUY IS A WEIRDO, and I wouldn't let my kids sleepover at his house.
Even if he is innocent of certain charges, he is NOT innocent of being a 40+ year old man playing make-believe peter-pan and S*** climbing trees and having slumber parties with little boys.
and WTF is with all the Mannequins?!?!?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Both were vital in the proliferation of the music industry period. Without either one the music industry would have been set back in unknown quantities. MJ's 80s music is really really good whatever he did in his personal life has no impact on how good his music is.
Crap murderers seem to get more breaks then MJ does apparently if they turn over a new leaf after being in prison and start to "try" to make the world a better place or write a book. A lot of people will forgive and forget apparently, but superstars are held to standards far beyond the average person.
Was he guilty of his charges we will never know for sure period! So pretending that it must be so is stupid and pretending that it never happened is equally dumb. There is a chance for either to be true and that is the long and the short of it. Until we have hard evidence either way it's up in the air and will always be so similar to JFK's assassination which still sparks heated debate.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
The minute you start learning yourself.
~RW Soldiers / RW Aggro (with a side of Giants) [T2]~
This is by far the most ignorant statement in the thread. To even try and compare a pioneer of black culture to two generic pop stars is laughable at best. You should think before you post.
RIP Michael, you will be missed.
I agree with the comparison to Britney and Miley being untrue, but no one will remember his music in a hundred years. He hasn't 'pioneered' black culture and music as much as sustained it. Sure, he sustained it better than most, but so what? He didn't 'break any ground', what he did was good, but nothing new. It was great, generic sounds, and he had a great voice as well as being a great dancer. And please please don't take this as racist, but pioneer black culture he did not. After his many changes and alterations to his appearance, the black community essentially dropped him. If you'll look back you'll realize they've only started lauding him and singing his praises now that he's dead, much like many only said that The Dark Knight was better than the first because Heath Ledger was dead. A pioneer he is not, but you're right in saying he will be missed. Not by me, but he will be missed.
EDIT: Also, saying that was the most ignorant statement in this thread was both ignorant and untrue. sentimentGX4 was making no attack to you, yet you lashed out at him. Calm down. This is a free mind forum, where all opinions should be accepted. Of course there are ignorant statements here, but there are ignorant statements on both sides. Your post is one of them.
(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
How did curiosity kill a cat?
(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
Maybe, MAYBE had the media not ragged on him for years about the alleged molestation, about him changing his apperance so drastically, things would have happened differently; who knows? But I don't understand why everyone is now pretending they always loved him, because they didn't.
I'm not lashing out at him I'm teaching him. If I was to lash out I'd insult him.
How can you say with any certainty what will and will not be remembered in a century? What makes you an expert? You should make up your mind, you go from agreeing with me to calling me out in the same sentence.
What he did later in his life doesn't change what he accomplished when he was younger. People can disclaim MTV now all they want but back when he came out with Thriller MTV was a legitimate musical station that only played white music. He broke that wide open because of his popularity and allowed countless black artists to gain enough exposure to make more money and reach out to more people. You think blacks shun MJ? The BET music awards honored him the entire night, they completely redid the show. Why would every well known black celebrity go to the event knowing full well that was happening if they all shunned him. I'm definitely going to take that as a racist statement, because it is one.
The comparison to The Dark Knight makes no sense. Heath Ledger was heralded as a great actor long before it came out. His death didn't change the public perception of him or the movie. His performance made that movie better than the first, not his death.
Accusatory remarks of ignorance and blatant character attack, that's lashing out, which seemed to me to be what you did.
I can't say with certainty, of course not. But he most likely, very likely, won't. Isaac Albéniz died in 1909, a hundred years ago, and no one remembers him. He was a prodigy and enigma, performing at the age of four. I can say with certainty that nearly a hundred percent of the American community has no idea he even existed. My mind was made up, I agreed with one of your points and disagreed with you later.
Blacks don't shun him now, I just said in my last post that now that he's dead they laud him and praise him, but a year ago that was quite the opposite. I wasn't clear or you misread my post. Also, explain to me how that in and of itself is racist in any way? I'm not attacking the African American community at all, and not bigotry at all.
I was using the Dark Knight as an example, because people have a need to make the dead feel better. Heath Ledger died and all of a sudden millions and millions went to see the Dark Knight. That would've happened anyway, but you can't tell me his death didn't contribute to the interest and buzz about the show. Like what happened with it, people now realize that Michael all of a sudden isn't a bad guy, and that he was 'a revolutionary to the pop industry'. Like a previous poster said, if a week ago you said you were a Michael Jackson fan you would've been laughed at.
EDIT: You were teaching him? Hah. Saying it was the most ignorant statement on the thread and saying his view was laughable. Teaching that is not.
(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
How did curiosity kill a cat?
(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)(W/R)
When did I attack the guy's character? I told him he made an uninformed post. I don't know how that can be turned into a defamation of character accusation, but you sure did try and pull it off.
And that proves any point how? Would he be put in the same league as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart? Doubtful. I can name a bunch of random pianist from the late 19th century but that's not going to make my point any stronger.
I took that as a racist statement because you are assuming something you have no idea on. Plus you were the one to even bring it up as being one in the first place, so that's how I could think it was. You keep bringing up things that I don't mention and have no relevance to the argument, I didn't call you a bigot nor insinuate that you were one. Why defend yourself then?
Sure his death brought more attention to the movie. That doesn't make any difference on the quality of the film! You claimed his death made the movie better than the first. Which is so ridiculous of a claim that it's not even worth trying to convince you otherwise.
The teaching came in when i told him to think before he posts. You should try it too, it can avoid these pointless debates in the future.
Additionally, that was a very ensemble movie - Heath Ledger's performance was very good indeed, but it was presented as an absolute and worked towards the whole, which just happened to be one of the greatest movies of my lifetime.
More on-topic, I think there's a misguided defense when people like MJ die, and it goes something like this every time: "Why should the guy get any respect/adoration/love just because he died?"
While it's a valid defense, it's used far too often as an attack. The simple fact is, if he didn't affect you, no one's asking you to paying respects. Hell, no one's asking you to pay respects anyways.
However, he affected many, many people in a positive way (pre-1990's Michael), and so this is an odd time when nostalgia and sadness kind of go hand-in-hand as a lot of people realize they've lost a piece of their childhood. Too many people here are too young to understand the profound positive cultural impact that he had (myself included, for the most part)... so instead most of them take the incomplete picture they have and force it on people as though it's a valid, encompassing story. It's like seeing 10 cards in a spoiler and proclaiming the whole set sucks.
People who are fans of MJ or are grieving his death are very much aware of the child molestation accusations, and I don't think very many will vouch for that era of his life. There is no need to use what might be the most played-out and unoriginal attack in the modern era of celebrities for the sole purpose of damaging someone's legacy - he's already done that plenty well, and there are about a million news outlets that have done it before and with better effect.
This is more appropriately - for those with common decency, that is - a time to mourn the loss of an icon and a hero to many.
While I have no doubt hundreds will troll through every imaginable mention of his name and blast idiocy in the direction of anyone who will listen, again - no one's asking you to be sad or pay your respects. Just let the people who care about this cope with it as they may, and then history will, in due time, remember the man as he was.
Were you even alive in the eighties bro? he was huge from 1973 until 1997.
not just famous huge. on mtv every day at least 3 times.
true, he did diddle some kids.
but your saying he will be forgetten
he still a nutjob, but i loveed him with all my heart until 1997 ( first trial)
However that trial was faked. if you look it up on wiki, the kids dad druged his son and tapereorded him saying he was touched.
he wanted mikes cash
on people's braces.
To give you an example, the Beatles released an album called 1 in 2000, more than thirty years after the band broke up. It soared to the top of the charts worldwide and was certified Diamond (11x Platinum, that's eleven million units shipped) on the United States. It was also the number one best-selling album in the United States in all of 2001, beating artists who then were at their peak, like the Backstreet Boys and Limp Bizkit. I really doubt a release by MJ will reach such heights 30 years from now, even if somehow the music market begins to stabilize.
Michael Jackson's influence and fame are extremely overarching, but sorry, he's still number two.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
This is a link to a slide show of photo's taken during the 2003 raid at neverland ranch
http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/neverland_ranch_raid_pictures#46658
Look,
I like Tom Cruise movies, even though in real life he is a bit of a flake, and might have some issues with opressing women. The movies, like Mission Imp. 1 and 3, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, all pretty good, watchable.
BUT THE GUY is a weirdo, and I wouldn't let my kids sleep over at his house.
I loved Thriller, I loved We are the World, I loved Smooth Criminal and Man in the Mirror, etc.
MJ's music was great.
You have to understand that he did NOT invent a new music...Stevie Wonder, Al Green, Little Richie, etc. THEY madeit posible for MJ to do what he did...MJ only did it like 50 times bigger, flashier, and made more money at it.
But look at those photos. THE GUY IS A WEIRDO, and I wouldn't let my kids sleepover at his house.
Even if he is innocent of certain charges, he is NOT innocent of being a 40+ year old man playing make-believe peter-pan and S*** climbing trees and having slumber parties with little boys.
and WTF is with all the Mannequins?!?!?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein