Better vocalist than The Beatles? If you are just looking at it as being a soul vocalist perhaps. But if you are looking at other kinds of vocal definitely not.

He should have done an album called Good, if might have been better than this one. :D

Oh dear, people taking my lazy comment too seriously. Anyway the arguments that he was heavily touring and "putting himself deep into his art" mean little when people like Prince, Bowie, Beatles, Stones, REM etc. were doing that also.

Prince, oh how I hate you, and cringe seeing you listed amongst those other groups.

what a great album, love the OP's review!

:p:Bad was good minus nothing only because it was 80's michael jackson that everyone pays homeage to. SO this is me being everyone paying homeage. :drummer::band::band::band::bonkhead::thumb:

Michael Jackson is just IT. Without him, music today won't be the same.

well if there was anything he did after the 80's worth talking about it would be different. But no matter what anyone says "Dangerous" was a lump of turd, as was "Invincible"... haven't bothered with anything else since.

His legacy would of been far better to me if he called it a day after "Bad".

His death changed everything, amazing how after he died a lot of the people who were talking crap about him the day before all of a sudden treated him like he was a saint. The day before it was considered uncool to have his music on your mp3 player, and then all of a sudden it was uncool to not have him on there. His death was his best publicity stunt and marked a return to form for his career... Just a shame he isn't around to see it, though in all likeliness if he was around, it would not be as strong as it is and all that would be irrelevant anyways.

I like Micheal Jackson, but I never got caught up in the whole after death special element of it all, and the sudden retro craze it caused. I got sick of seeing the guy treated as some sort of messiah by people who would of treated him like he was the antichrist when he was alive. The sudden switch in people just turned me off.

I suppose he is one of the few big American pop icons of the last 30 years so he has to be hyped up by some, same with Gaga really. Why people actually need a big icon I don't know. I would've thought it would be more profitable to look at pop more widely across styles and places and see the vast number of influences there can be.