Michael Jackson, widely celebrated as one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century, has long held the prestigious title of the ‘King of Pop.’ However, a recent declaration by Rolling Stone has stirred significant controversy, as the magazine proclaimed British singer Harry Styles as the ‘new King of Pop.’
The late icon, known globally for hits like “Billie Jean” and “Thriller,” passed away tragically in 2009 at the age of 50. His career was marked by groundbreaking success and unparalleled influence, earning him 13 Grammy Awards, six Brit Awards, five Billboard Music Awards, and a remarkable 24 American Music Awards. Jackson’s legacy extends even further, with a staggering 20 Guinness World Records credited to his name, cementing his influence on the global music industry.
On the other hand, Harry Styles, now 29, first gained widespread attention as a member of the boyband One Direction, which was formed on the UK talent show The X Factor. Though the group achieved massive success, Styles eventually pursued a solo career, releasing three studio albums to date. His solo work, characterized by a blend of pop, rock, and soulful ballads, has earned him critical acclaim and three Grammy Awards, solidifying his position as one of the most successful contemporary artists of his generation.
However, the decision to label Styles as the ‘new King of Pop’ has not been received positively across the board. Fans and even Michael Jackson’s family have openly criticized the title, arguing that the label is deeply tied to Jackson’s unparalleled career and influence.
The controversy erupted when Rolling Stone published a feature on Styles, with the headline boldly stating, “Harry Styles: How the New King of Pop Set the Music World Aflame.” While the publication’s younger readership may be more inclined to accept this title for Styles, those who grew up witnessing Jackson’s meteoric rise have pushed back, claiming the title cannot be reassigned.
Jackson’s nephew, Taj Jackson, publicly voiced his disapproval of the magazine’s choice of words. Sharing the Rolling Stone cover on X (formerly known as Twitter), Taj expressed his frustration: “There is no new King of Pop. You don’t own the title @RollingStone, and you didn’t earn it—my uncle did. Decades of dedication and sacrifice. The title has been retired. No disrespect to @Harry_Styles, he’s mega-talented.”
Taj’s stance was not a mere personal opinion but echoed by a large segment of Jackson’s loyal fanbase, who argued the title was more than a label—it symbolized an entire cultural phenomenon. His statement urging that Styles be given a unique title rather than inheriting his uncle’s sparked a wave of support online, with the post garnering over 11,600 retweets and countless comments.
Many fans were quick to agree, emphasizing that the ‘King of Pop’ title should remain exclusive to Michael Jackson. One user commented, “I’m a huge Harry Styles fan, but no. He is not the new King of Pop. There is no new King of Pop.” Another echoed similar sentiments, stating, “100% agree. When Michael Jackson departed this world, the title of King of Pop left with him. It’s an insult to give that label to anyone considering the struggles the Jackson family went through back in the day to get to where they are. It’s retired.”
A third commenter added, “Well said, Taj! The King of Pop title belongs solely to your uncle, Michael Jackson. No one can replace him.”
Yet, the conversation was not entirely one-sided. Some fans defended Styles, claiming the label could simply signify a new era in pop music. “I mean… let’s use context clues… The NEW King of Pop… which means there was a FIRST King of Pop… which is your uncle. We all know this. Let people also shine,” one fan argued. Another chimed in, saying, “He is the new King of Pop, deal with it.”
The ongoing debate reveals a generational divide in music fandom. While Jackson’s influence remains unmatched in the eyes of many, Styles has undeniably made a powerful impact in the modern pop music landscape. However, whether the ‘King of Pop’ title should remain permanently retired or adapted for a new generation remains a heated topic of discussion.