Which musician / group is the most universally liked?

[Roy H.]

Also, who doesn't love them some Michael Jackson.

Very catchy music but the sleeping with / befriending children think didn’t help his universal appeal.

[Jvalin]

Also, who doesn't love them some Michael Jackson.

Very catchy music but the sleeping with / befriending children think didn’t help his universal appeal.

Yep, I've heard people saying that they can't truly enjoy his music because of this. It reminds them of the rape accusations.

[nickagneta]

Also, who doesn't love them some Michael Jackson.

Very catchy music but the sleeping with / befriending children think didn’t help his universal appeal.

I don't know. How much do you judge a musician based on their personal lives? I detest drugs and the effects they have on society and individuals, but I am not sure I ever discount how much I like a songmaker's music based on the fact they were massive drug addicts.

Also, Jackson has been exposed to more people than just about anyone, so more people probably like his music. Lots of names here have mentioned people who's best days were 40 years ago. How many people under 30 will have even heard of some of these artists? MJ spans generations and genres.

But, you do bring up a good point.

[jambr380]

I came on here to say: Stevie Wonder, Billy Joel, and Michael Jackson, but Nick and footey already have me covered there - so TPs to you guys. The first two should be obvious. MJ was obvious and if you are talking strictly musically, he probably wins the award, but I know there are people turned off by the accusations.

[jambr380]

Nickleback

Lol - that actually made me laugh. I'll add Five Finger Death Punch and 6six9ine to the list, too 

[Roy H.]

I’m curious, what’s the appeal of Stevie Wonder? 

Me, I’d put Lionel Richie over him. 

[obnoxiousmime]

By "universally liked" that would include the current generation which would disqualify acts like Billy Joel or Tom Petty. Not that anybody dislikes them, but they just don't cross enough genres to be beloved by the most people. I think at this point in history Prince is probably the most revered and the most relevant when you listen to today's music. I don't mean that music sounds like Prince but that popular music is now a mishmash of many genres, just like his music was.

[jambr380]

I’m curious, what’s the appeal of Stevie Wonder? 

Me, I’d put Lionel Richie over him.

It just really depends what you mean by your original question. Michael Jackson wins by a landslide if you are just speaking musically, but it sounds like personality and likability matter. People obviously know a bunch of Stevie's songs and the fact that he is blind doesn't hurt.

We can all say Tom Petty and The Beatles, but I am just finding it a lot easier to select a black artist rather than a white one in terms of universal appeal (not necessarily overall popularity). Before Whitney unraveled, who didn't like her? What about Diana Ross, Aretha Franklin, Louis Armstrong, Jimi Hendrix? Lionel Richie is definitely a good choice, too.

[Redz]

My friends and I were discussing which musical act would be accepted by the largest percentage if you just grabbed a bunch of people at random.  It’s not “who would be most popular” so much as who would get the fewest “no way” votes.

Our group of mostly pasty white professionals in our 30s to 50s arrived on Tom Petty.  Nobody seems to hate Tom Petty as an artist.  It’s not because he’s generic, but rather that he seems universal.

Who would you throw out there as a contender?  And do any of you truly hate Tom Petty?

I like Petty, especially since he was a fan of my favorite group, the Monkees.

I feel like the answer to your main question would depend on the majority demographic(s) of the random group being asked—age, ethnicity, male vs. female, etc. The Beatles, of course, are extremely well-liked, but I've also found it rare, in my experience, to find anyone who truly disliked the Monkees. And Elvis seems to have a lot of cross-generational appeal.

Another thing that might factor into this discussion is the fact that artists of the last 30-40 years—that is, those who've been active during the time of modern mass media and then social media—are a lot more visible, including any scandals or questionable behavior that a lot of people would object to. I'm thinking primarily of Madonna, who is obviously a very popular artist but whose image doesn't sit well with quite a few people.

The Monkees were tv actors not musicians. When they tried to make their own album they failed miserably. They were replaced by an animated group The Archies who turned out the huge hit Sugar Sugar.

I mean no offense to you, but you're terribly misinformed about the Monkees, as are many others, unfortunately.

Two of the Monkees—Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork—were accomplished musicians before they joined the Monkees. And Micky Dolenz learned to play the drums for the TV show The Monkees. They were actors for the show, of course, but once their music exploded in popularity (thanks to the show), they went out on tour and played all of their own instruments in concert. Then they fought for, and gained, full control of their music, and the first album they did on their own, Headquarters, went to No. 1 before getting knocked from the top spot by Sgt. Pepper's; their next album, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, and Jones, Ltd., also went to number one; and the one after that, The Birds, the Bees, and the Monkees, went to No. 3.

I'm not sure why you bring up the Archies, or what you mean by the Monkees being "replaced" by the Archies, as the two groups really had nothing to do with each other (other than music executive Don Kirshner being involved with both). As far as singles go, the Archies had one No. 1 song and basically no other success, whereas the Monkees had three No. 1 singles, a No. 2 single, and two No. 3 singles. They also had a very successful (No. 14) reunion album in 2016.

All of that to say that categorizing the Monkees as having "failed miserably," or failed at all, is just plain false.

Thanks for taking the time to debunk that one!  I had seen it earlier and wanted to chime in but didn’t have the time (or as much factual evidence from memory as you).

[celts10]

Nirvana.

[Roy H.]

Nirvana.

Amazing band, but lots and lots of people who wouldn’t want to listen to them. 

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

My friends and I were discussing which musical act would be accepted by the largest percentage if you just grabbed a bunch of people at random.  It’s not “who would be most popular” so much as who would get the fewest “no way” votes.

Our group of mostly pasty white professionals in our 30s to 50s arrived on Tom Petty.  Nobody seems to hate Tom Petty as an artist.  It’s not because he’s generic, but rather that he seems universal.

Who would you throw out there as a contender?  And do any of you truly hate Tom Petty?

I like Petty, especially since he was a fan of my favorite group, the Monkees.

I feel like the answer to your main question would depend on the majority demographic(s) of the random group being asked—age, ethnicity, male vs. female, etc. The Beatles, of course, are extremely well-liked, but I've also found it rare, in my experience, to find anyone who truly disliked the Monkees. And Elvis seems to have a lot of cross-generational appeal.

Another thing that might factor into this discussion is the fact that artists of the last 30-40 years—that is, those who've been active during the time of modern mass media and then social media—are a lot more visible, including any scandals or questionable behavior that a lot of people would object to. I'm thinking primarily of Madonna, who is obviously a very popular artist but whose image doesn't sit well with quite a few people.

The Monkees were tv actors not musicians. When they tried to make their own album they failed miserably. They were replaced by an animated group The Archies who turned out the huge hit Sugar Sugar.

I mean no offense to you, but you're terribly misinformed about the Monkees, as are many others, unfortunately.

Two of the Monkees—Mike Nesmith and Peter Tork—were accomplished musicians before they joined the Monkees. And Micky Dolenz learned to play the drums for the TV show The Monkees. They were actors for the show, of course, but once their music exploded in popularity (thanks to the show), they went out on tour and played all of their own instruments in concert. Then they fought for, and gained, full control of their music, and the first album they did on their own, Headquarters, went to No. 1 before getting knocked from the top spot by Sgt. Pepper's; their next album, Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn, and Jones, Ltd., also went to number one; and the one after that, The Birds, the Bees, and the Monkees, went to No. 3.

I'm not sure why you bring up the Archies, or what you mean by the Monkees being "replaced" by the Archies, as the two groups really had nothing to do with each other (other than music executive Don Kirshner being involved with both). As far as singles go, the Archies had one No. 1 song and basically no other success, whereas the Monkees had three No. 1 singles, a No. 2 single, and two No. 3 singles. They also had a very successful (No. 14) reunion album in 2016.

All of that to say that categorizing the Monkees as having "failed miserably," or failed at all, is just plain false.

Thanks for taking the time to debunk that one!  I had seen it earlier and wanted to chime in but didn’t have the time (or as much factual evidence from memory as you).

My pleasure! And I'm glad to know there's at least one other Monkees defender here!

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Nirvana.

Amazing band, but lots and lots of people who wouldn’t want to listen to them.

Nirvana was one of my favorites throughout high school and college, and I still enjoy listening to them occasionally, but their sound is definitely way too heavy for many people.

[GreenFaith1819]

Earth Wind and Fire, Doobie Brothers, Average White Band, Chicago, Supertramp, Toto.

Shame that these titans aren't spoken of more.

[celts10]

Phil Collins?