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.