What would Jagger have been solo? MJ is far greater than Jagger
Fair question, but Mick is a front man, not a soloist. He'd probably not do too well if he went the way of a Joe Walsh,Eric Clapton,Don Henley, Rod Stewart, etc. but the Stones are dead without him, also , like the Doors without JM. He is the Stones, you could replace any other member of the band ( and may need to someday soon, like Keith R.), but not Mick... it would never be the same ! 40+ years with the same front man can never be replaced.
Thriller IS extraordinary, to this day, I might even still have a recording of it, but I love the STONES, JMO !
50 years from now ( I'll be dead, of course), I think songs like Satisfaction, Start me up,Wild horses, etc. will be more listened to than Beat it, Billie Jean, etc. I could be wrong ( won't know), but that MJ stuff was too disco/pop 80ish.
A lot of it is personal taste.
To me Stones are best band ever.
I could almost say I prefer MJ over Elvis, very close call. MJ was too 80ish ( limited). Stones are 60's to 90's ( if not to date).