Quote Originally Posted by Catty1 View Post
blue, I agree with you.

Les Paul was an innovator, a genius, a creator. His performances were entertaining.

Jackson was an entertainer per se, and grew up in the generation that had a very different star-making machine.

It's a bit of an apple and orange comparison, IMO - Jackson, however fairly or otherwise - commanded worldwide attention and fandom.

Les Paul didn't need a dad to beat him into perfection - he was that already, innately. And I get the feeling he wouldn't have wanted the adulation and being a "star".

The Jackson kids - out-front entertainers, performers, with colour and glitz...like Elvis (who wrote half of one of his own songs). Different path.

A hybrid of the two paths might be found in the Beatles, where showmanship and creative talent both blended well and successfully.
Mr Paul gave us much more then MJ did. Also Mr Paul wasnt creepy.

The Beatles sucked, but thats a different thread.