Pop necessitates a mastery over a variety of styles. You don't need to do everything, but you do need to be flexible; a master of arms as it were.

Both McCartney & Jackson nailed their style of music, but they tend not to branch out further. When I think of the folks making pop music today: Pink, Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake, Lady Gaga, and to a lesser extent Bruno Mars & Ke$ha I think of people all over the freakin map.

I think its why pop bands never fair as well. Studio musicians are almost a must. The legends certainly pushed an envelope, but the way technology is advancing, they never stood a chance. And in Pop music, there never should be a classic, really.

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.

Ty for formatting your opinion this way, I knew by the time I got to MJ that I was going to be in for a biased one.

I agree and I'm sure I must have said that on this forum or another one. Pop covers very many different styles and McCartney has probably covered most of them.

I don't agree that those you mention have branched out more than McCartney. He has been around since the 60s from beat music, tin pan alley style, rock, psychedelia, disco, acoustic folk style, classical music, experimental music. I don't really get the comparison to those you mention.

If you're including his work with the beatles.

Well many of his Beatles songs he wrote alone anyway. Even post-Beatles he's done a variety of things. The names you mention I don't think have been going long enough to make a valid comparison.

i like Macca more than Wacko Jacko

as to King of Pop, I don't think there's one fit for the throne

No, probably not. But my point was that, in their short time, they've expanded what a "base sound" is in pop music. I'm saying pop songs will inherently sound dated as technology advances. Not to mention these songs are made to fit the times. Even Madonna, who has every right at the throne has a catalog that sounds old at this point.

Its not a dispersion. Pop, more than most other genres (can't think of another one), requires the existence of fore-bearers. It moves so fast that as an artist you need to focus on whats relevant. Things like choreography, arrangements, hell even musical theory requires a "team" over time to build. Where was back-up dancing before MJ? No where. Now everyone does it.

Where was stylistic change ups before Madonna? No where. Now everyone has a spanish song no matter how gringo because of her.

Where was the bass-less funk song before Prince? No where. He was just that nuts. And now ridiculous instrument choices are the soup de jur. (no idea if thats correct).

You need precedent for the extra stuff, but Pop rarely has a classic save for a handful of songs.

Paul McCartney's solo work is abysmal. Lennon was much better in that regard.

Better sure, but I'd say they were both pretty terrible. Lennon consistently hits me as a guy I'm supposed to like because of precedent.

"Aw man, how can you not like Lennon"

"I don't ****ing know, because it all sounds the god damned same and his lyrics aren't nearly as engaging as everyone pretends they are...thats how?"