Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Pop isn't a genre and so to compare certain artist together is like comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing a singer/songwriter/musician to an entertainer/dancing fool.

Paul McCartney definitely influenced Rock and Roll and a lot of the sub-genres that followed have something they owe to The Beatles. I don't think one can talk about Rock and act like Paul McCartney didn't matter, and not acknowledges his influence on it. I think he does have a positive and lasting influence on music in general. There are probably more artists (from all different musical backgrounds) that cover Beatles songs than any band I know. That shows he what he wrote wasn't just for the charts to be forgotten but his songs had substance that other musicians could recognize.

Michael Jackson had a hard childhood and (to put it kindly) a bizarre adult life. Musically I don't care for Michael Jackson, he's creepy the way he sings his high notes, and not to mention the other things he did. There are plenty of singers regardless of genre that are better than Michael Jackson. And his dancing wasn't original when he was young he imitated James Brown, and when he was older he took moves from Bob Fosse and most likely what moves he didn't steal, were taught to him. One thing I didn't care for was when Michael Jackson toured Eastern Europe I heard he charged something like 3 month salary for a ticket. I don't care what antics he can pull on while dancing on stage he could he shouldn't had change them that much, he could afford to give them a free concert if he wanted to, he is not as great as people make him out to be.

Originally Posted by RoxyRollah

IMO I don't know jack-**** though so don't listen to me.

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

The problem is that most police officers in America are psychopaths.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You're a terrible dictionary.