Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight
Necromancer actually brought up the comparison to The Beatles. And I just don't find the styles you put up as diverse as The Beatles, the classical one is the most diverse. Most of Jackson's styles are soul in some way or another. And yet the claim was made here that Michael Jackson appeals to a broader audience, puzzling. The Beatles did more styles while also doing soul (funk, gospel, blues) too
|
Thats YOUR OPINION that you dont find it as diverse as the Beatles.
Are you living under a rock? This is MICHAEL JACKSON he is a global superstar whether you like it or not. Even NON fans will admit to this that just cant be denied as well as his relevance to pop culture You question his appeal but yet he has countless fans and sold out international tours that show otherwise at this point I dont know what else to say to you. I have given you all the facts. He deserved the right, accolades, possess the talent to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Beatles which he IS countlessly.
Michael's roots is R&B but he sings a variety of genres and he has a diverse catalogue. You want to compare that to the Beatles though BUT then state they shouldnt be compared? Your arguement isnt consistent and just biased in general