In
my opinion a singer has to fulfill certain criterias to be able to be called a king/queen of pop (or any other style of music).
For me it's important if I'd call s.o. a king/queen, he/she has to:
- have the capability to create music on his/her own, e.g. song writing, composing, perhaps producing, choreographing (I don't mean the capability to do a dance routine in a spectacular perfect way - it's about creativity!)
- be long time in music business, at least 20 years
- be formative and taking influence on ather singers
- have huge record sales
- be well known wordlwide - not just in industrial countries (at least a song of him/her)
I honestly think, that's why Michael has this title justifiably!
For me it's not enough, to fulfill 2-3 criterias, e.g. Madonna. She's a very long time in music business, sold and sells millions of copies and has/had a certain influence on others. But the main reason, why
I can't call her a queen of pop is that she's not known for creating her own music. She has songwriters, composers.. I don't want to sound rude, but for me it's a sign of a loss of creativity (Please correct me if I'm that wrong as I'm not that much into Madge's art).
Let's take a look at Britney. When she was on her peak she sold millions of CDs, filled stadiums, won awards worldwide. But she wasn't long enough at the top and also her own creativity skills aren't that concise. I'm aware that she wrote some of her songs, especially on her last album, but did she succeed?
Mariah and Whitney have (respectively had) amazing voices and great success at the CD stores. But again, for me that's not enough to justify a queen of pop.
I could go on with the singers listed above similarly but I think my point of view is clearly stated.
So judging by my criterias there is no female analog to Michael - and I don't say this cuz I'm a MJ-fan!
I'm not really a fan of Lady GaGa but in my eyes she has the possibility to be called a queen of pop if she's able to keep reigning popular music culture for the next decade(s).