Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
and why wouldn't they release them if they found out to be legit?
Legit? You provide no proof and that's legit for you?
How do we actually know if the audiologists were fooled? What if they were fooled? You know what would happen in that case? NOTHING! Because they did everything they could, yet they were deceived. The tracks would remain legit untill someone brings the contrary proof. But how can one bring such a proof? There are no traces whatsoever!
Let's not mix up the term
legit and
genuine.
example: someone says that you are intentionally posting on this thread to start arguments. I investigate it to my best ability and I find it not to be true. what will I do? Let you post freely because I couldn't find any evidence? or ban you from posting because a doubt about you was raised?
Do not compare things that have nothing to do in common. Do you have a huge number of people telling you so? If yes, then my place is not here anymore. If a petition is raised against my comments I would most certainly take into account those complaints and despite the fact that it is not true, I would better retract from the thread and wait the appropriate moment to come back.
Not correct. See the first part. For example in mergers/ acquisitions there are predetermined steps of due diligence. It's common business practice used in many type of transactions.
And the point is? Do the Cascio tracks sound any different? No. Is there still a doubt? Yes.
For example : Cars are being sold with safety tests done - this is initial due diligence. If you see cars having accidents due to a common issue you need to do additional investigation - this is due diligence due to concerns.
Are the cars any safer? Yes, but NOT NECESSARILY. Many cars are called back to the factories because of many malfunctions. Last example TOYOTA and LEXUS. Some people even died because of brakes problems.
Was there a due diligence beforehand? Yes. Were the cars tested beforehand? Yes. Were the cars legit? Yes. Did that prevent accidents or loss of life? NO!
Similarly I'm sure sony/estate isn't buying songs from anyone that walks from the street and says I have a MJ song. MJ's relationship with Cascio's was already known and he also recorded vocals for Thriller 25 with them - those could have satisfied initial due diligence. After vocals doubts were introduced they could have done additional investigation.
The thing is, the doubts are on all Cascio tracks! Not only one. But all of them. It simply does not sound Michael. We can rehash comments over and over again. They can believe whoever they want, but they certainly do not seem to take into account a huge number of MJ's fans who are sure 1000000% that it is not Michael. You can fool a few people, but not thousands, whatever and whoever is behind this massive scam!
Plus due diligence doesn't protect you from being sued. Regardless of any investigation done they can be sued. Due diligence just could be a defense strategy to demonstrate good faith and argue against intentional malice.
Of course that they can be sued, but not found guilty. Let's not play with words.
yes and your point being? cigarettes cause cancer yet they are being sold with a warning. Vocals debate and what has been done/ not done is public knowledge. Simply don't buy it if you don't like it.
My point being that despite all the legal procedures, they did not manage to change what we hear: a voice that does not belong to MICHAEL. Those are facts because they do not have a single tangible proof. Not one! Nada! Zip! Zero! A waveform analysis is not a proof. It is what it is, an analysis that can fool even the most experienced audiologists (who probably happen not to be Michael's fans). They can be wrong, just as doctors can be wrong, such as Murray in his drugs administration despite the fact that he was portrayed as an excellent cardiologist.
ps: I don't think you were able to grasp what due diligence is. and honestly I do not know how to explain it better.
It has nothing to do with my understanding of due diligence. I know what it is. i know that companies use it. Investors use it. I just don't buy the excuse of it. It is not because you make something legit that it necessarily gives you the right to sell it like that.
The example with cigarette was a bad example. Untill recently we didn't know that cigarettes were harmful. As cancer is something that you don't catch in one day, we only recently realized how bad cigarettes are. Hence, they progressively are banning cigarettes, starting by anti-publicity, banning smoking in public places, restaurants, etc. Until they completely forbid it. it will happen.
