i think the Beatles were. their songs are still being appreciated for almost 50 yrs and i even see young teens becoming diehard fans.
Well in their prime the Beatles could have nothing like the extreme international reach that Jackson had because things weren't as open around the world as they became later.
Another interesting difference between Jackson and the Beatles is that the Beatles were considered subversive when they came out and so alot of the adult world couldn't stand them (their look, what they sang about etc). Jackson (Kind of like Sinatra) was embraced by young people and accepted by the adult mainstream in America, and around the world. President Ronald Reagan claimed he was a fan (yeah Right, but the point is he claimed it) and he even sent Jackson a get well letter after his accident while shooting that famous Pepsi commercial. They also made several appearences together at other times. By the way, this was during the prime of his populairty, not years and years later after he became a past legend. Paul Mccartney started meeting with a bunch of world leaders, if i'm not mistaken, way after his prime, once he became a past legend.
Jackson would be unbelievably iconic today (or more so) if he hadn't completely screwed up his life.
I don't think Michael Jackson's music was good enough to stand the test of time.
Elvis, The Beatles, Led Zep, The Who - even ABBA - are already basically immortal, and deservedly so. The cream always rises to the top. It remains to be seen whether the performer of songs like 'Human Nature' 'PYT' 'Man in the Mirror' 'Dirty Diana' 'Remember the Time' 'She's Out of my Life' etc. will be as highly regarded by future fans.
Personally, I would switch radio stations if any of these tunes came on.
Tweet
Comment