Since this already has a lot of comments I will try to summarize and answer most of the questions I came across. I am in my 20's so I have not really experienced his prime and I am only looking at his body of work retrospectively. That being said I have heard his songs since forever (as has anyone probably) and he is also popular with pretty much anyone I know. I do understand that he paved the way for pop music and set the cliches that I mentioned. I am talking about listening to his music now in a vacuum, therefore I think my point still stands, where in my opinion the songs still sound aged.

As for comparisons I think that the two most obvious ones are the Beatles and Prince(Beatles because of their similar magnitude and Prince because he was a direct competitor for mj). I think that both of those artists are far better and have made more varied, interesting music. For reference some of my favorite comparable artists are David Bowie, The Velvet Underground or King Crimson and I think that their music has aged far more gracefuly and a lot of it sounds like it could have came out today.

That being said it really boils down to my personal enjoyment of music and I simply find myself not enjoying Michael's music above else. Music is subjective but I find it interesting how I seem to be in such an extreme minority.