Michael - The Great Album Debate

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

this is not an issue of what WE know. this is an issue of what they know.

And what do they know???? I am sorry but they failed to communicated it convincingly. Where are those reports?

Sure. but isn't that reality of life? Is everything perfect - no? Is errors possible - yes? Like your car example below - they try to do everything make sure the cars are safe but yet negative things can happen.

You are missing the point here. Find which one is original and which one is a copy, yet both being legit:

this is actually perfect for the point I'm trying to make. but we still have cars on the streets right? and they are still being sold? so you have "doubts", you have a "history of concerns", you have example of "due diligence" failing / not being enough but yet the product is still being sold. Why? Why not pull the cars out of the market then? Isn't it your argument for the album? we have doubts and due diligence isn't perfect therefore it shouldn't be sold?

Look the pics above. One is the copy of the other. The copy should not be sold, yet I am challenging you to sue China for copying the South Korean product. Just as many doubters asked us doubters to sue SONY. We have as many chances as South Korea suing China, in other terms zero.

okay I avoided it but let's talk about huge numbers then. How many people bought the album, how many people protested the album?

that's irrelevant as there are still 7 other songs on the album that are Michael's.

Wasn't the argument presented in the thread before they got away with it because the album sold well, most people didn't care/ couldn't tell and that they could do it again? so what is it? huge number against or not?

Doubters bought it for other songs, not for the Cascio ones. But if you had an album of 12 Cascio songs I wonder how well/bad would it sell.

Legal system isn't that definitive as you portray out to be. and showing due diligence doesn't automatically equal to a free pass. We discussed this before for example like you suggested a judge could ask did you run impostor vocals through the system and they say no the due diligence couldn't mean anything as they fail to do "everything reasonably possible". I wrote it before it's quite high standard.

My point being -so what! The tracks are still being doubted and nobody bother to show any tangible proof despite the demand. That's a total lack of respect. Lawful doesn't mean genuine as I said. It doesn't mean perfect as we both know.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

So, your initial instinct was?? What did your ears hear first? Michael Jackson? Or someone completely different?

If you're having doubts now....Remember what you felt like...

How about you? What was your basic instinct?

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Not if most of those "excuses" aren't excuses at all, but valid reasoning as to why something may be the way it is...Bottomline is, you wouldn't appreciate it if I responded to all of your "excuses" as to why Sony would do such a thing as complete and utter bullshit. So why do you find it acceptable to do it to others?

The term "complete and utter bullshit" is harsh. However, many of the doubters do not just blindly call the reasons came up by the non-doubters excuses. Many of us explain in detail why we believe they are just excuses. You follow this thread, you have seen all the posts. Don't discredit our efforts like that.

Many of you are rearing far away from what Michael taught and stood for. Get a hold of yourselves.

Please... this is so unnecessary. Yes, the discussions get heated sometimes. But, we behave and respect others most of the time. We debate on the subject matter, not person.

I personally find this thread to be one of the most civilized one in this forum. Yes, this is my honest opinion. That's why I stick with this thread this long.

If you want to preach, please go to the 2300 Jackson Street sub-forum.

 

[Mikaeel101]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

How about you? What was your basic instinct?

Sharon Stone.

WIN!

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^^

To add something honestly - in the last few weeks when it became a trend to use the word "excuses" , I said "perhaps it's time to say whatever". Because we strongly advocate for "respect other people's opinions" and maintain a general "respect" rule at MJJC. The minute you belittle a person's "opinion" as an "excuse" , a lot of human dignity is lost unfortunately.

Believe me if a person's argument is strong enough they can win on merit without needing to attack / belittle other side.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

And what do they know???? I am sorry but they failed to communicated it convincingly. Where are those reports?

circles - circles - circles.. we discussed this right. simply put - they don't have to. still unhappy? - challenge them in court.

Look the pics above. One is the copy of the other. The copy should not be sold, yet I am challenging you to sue China for copying the South Korean product. Just as many doubters asked us doubters to sue SONY. We have as many chances as South Korea suing China, in other terms zero.

Well they did sue them actually and settled out of court. so that means I can expect the lawsuit against Sony being filed soon?

Also we have seen people singlehandedly fight against major companies, industries in legal history. (anybody remember Erin Brokovitch?). I really cannot see any reason why you wouldn't be able to sue anyone especially if it's so obviously not Michael and you are 100000% confident.

Ps: Laws in China is not comparable to laws in US. You are talking about a copyright infringement case in a country that doesn't have enough laws about intellectual property rights protection. I can assure you that consumer fraud laws are well established in US.

------------

December 21, 2004 General Motors (GM) filed a lawsuit against China's Chery Automobile Co for alleged piracy of a mini car developed by its South Korean affiliate Daewoo.

Nov 19, 2005 General Motors Corp. and its major South Korean subsidiary have reached an out-of-court settlement with China's Chery Automobile Company Limited in an intellectual property dispute over the design of small vehicle, the automaker said.

-----------

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^^

To add something honestly - in the last few weeks when it became a trend to use the word "excuses" , I said "perhaps it's time to say whatever". Because we strongly advocate for "respect other people's opinions" and maintain a general "respect" rule at MJJC. The minute you belittle a person's "opinion" as an "excuse" , a lot of human dignity is lost unfortunately.

Believe me if a person's argument is strong enough they can win on merit without needing to attack / belittle other side.

Using the word "excuses" is not the only trend. Calling other's opinon "biased" is another trend.

We shall not overlook the fact that most of us do spend a lot of efforts explaining why we think some of the reasons are not valid. Many of us don't pop in and call other's opinons invalid and worth less. Actually, I have seen in several ocassions the non-doubters just pop in and state their own opinions as facts and start attacking the doubters (I mean it can't get any lower than telling the doubters have no life or no friend.)

This is a debate, isn't it? If one's argument is strong enough, then one can always explain why one's reasoning is not an excuse and counter-argue.

Ivy, you managed to change my view on several matters. Before, I thought it's highly unusual for Michael not to register a good amount of songs. But, when you told me Brad Buxer registered 19 songs recently, I started to think it might not be that unusual afterall.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Using the word "excuses" is not the only trend. Calling other's opinon "biased" is another trend.

I'll correct/explain one thing - I personally said that "we all" are biased and also multiple times added that "included me" as well. In short I never claimed "you (others) are biased and I'm perfect", on the contrary I said "we are (including me) all imperfect in our opinions due to our bias in one way or another".


and thank you for the last part

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The term "complete and utter bullshit" is harsh. However, many of the doubters do not just blindly call the reasons came up by the non-doubters excuses. Many of us explain in detail why we believe they are just excuses. You follow this thread, you have seen all the posts. Don't discredit our efforts like that.




Please... this is so unnecessary. Yes, the discussions get heated sometimes. But, we behave and respect others most of the time. We debate on the subject matter, not person.

I personally find this thread to be one of the most civilized one in this forum. Yes, this is my honest opinion. That's why I stick with this thread this long.

If you want to preach, please go to the 2300 Jackson Street sub-forum.

Show me these examples of explaining in detail why things are "excuses" as opposed to logical reasoning. Numerous times have I seen the same posters, over and over again, claim something is a "pathetic excuse, and bullshit" without any reason whatsoever, these comments come in response to a statement made such as, "The voice sounds processed, it's possible that the melodyne and whatever else they used altered the voice to an almost unrecognizable nature". That right there is a logical reason, and like I said before, you wouldn't know anything about it, unless you've worked in a studio and experienced what these programs can do to ones voice. From my understanding, not many of us are professionals in that field, therefore how can you be so quick to write it off as an "excuse" as opposed to a possibility?

You're right, I follow this thread, I see the posts, and not one of them have been respectful to any of our (believers) opinions, NOT ONE. Now when you look at it, you have people like Ivy, reading a post, and responding with "you make a good point" or "It's possible". But then when someone says something that disputes your belief, many of you say it's an "excuse", again, without any reasoning whatsoever. You show me these posts where opinions are respected, or where these "It's an excuse" statements are followed by a logical explanation, and I'll gladly take back what I said. Until then, I'm going to continue speak my mind, based off my own observations in this thread.


This discussion is beyond heated, in fact if more people paid attention to this thread, I'm inclined to believe it may have been closed and locked already. There isn't any debating here, for the most part, just people basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong, no if's, and's, or but's". It's gotten to a point where I've received PM's of people who used to post in this thread, voicing their disdain for that type of logic. It isn't fair, nor should it be allowed, save that for another forum.


In no way am I attempted to turn this into a "Vs." type of situation, and I sincerely apologize for using such examples. But I'm just speaking totally on observation alone.

 

[Mikaeel101]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Show me these examples of explaining in detail why things are "excuses" as opposed to logical reasoning. Numerous times have I seen the same posters, over and over again, claim something is a "pathetic excuse, and bullshit" without any reason whatsoever

We've given plenty of reasons why we don't think Michael isn't on the songs, you haven't seen them within these countless pages. Here's a short little list:

1. The song being registered after Michael died and not before.

2. There are barely any high notes or hee hee's on any of the tracks, making us believe that the impersonaotor can't hit he notes Michael can.

3. Jason barely saying anything about the whole thing.

4. 90% of fans trashing the song seconds after it premiered.

There's tons more, but what really bothers me is that 80% of the posts in this entire debate thread is made up of people who think it isn't Michael. You could go to any page in this entire debate thread and 80% of the responses on that page are from non-believers like myself.

 

[azsummergirl]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

In case you didn't notice I haven't argued against your point , I gave you a basic information , a definition. and you say that's condescending? sensitive much? you don't see me cry about your cursing do you?

ya, i think you said you didn't give an "f". That letter offends me, can you watch it please

Fact #1: Sony/The Estate admitted to the initial stream being the wrong mix, and they would fix the problem. Again, their claim, not mines.

Fact #2: The album version is different from the initial stream, as admitted by some of your fellow doubters on the last page. They don't hear the vocal difference, I do. That's fine, their opinion, I won't attempt to change that.

Fact #3: Many people heard the acapella of the song, and were convinced it was Michael, again that was confirmed by some of your fellow doubters in previous pages of this thread, to quote a couple, "I can't believe people actually believe this is Michael, after hearing this". Also, "Believe it or not, the acapella is what convinced many people that it's Michael on these songs."


Anything else?

wait: Huh? i don't understand this post at all. it goes straight over my head, i totally don't get it. but i'll give it a shot:

You hear a vocal difference between the original stream and the "new stream" but you can't hear a difference between the singer on the cascio tracks and michael jackson?

how can you even remember the original stream? did you save it on your computer or something? surely, someone must have. i would love for it to be posted so we can all hear how "drastically different" the original stream was.

i don't understand what you're say with "fact 3" at all. like at all. what are you trying to say? coming from my point of view, BN never sounded like michael. Hearing it stripped of instrumentals and processing as an acapella completely cemented that for me. it sounds nothing like him. sooo---what was your point? that the acapella isn't the same as the released track?

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ya, i think you said you didn't give an "f". That letter offends me, can you watch it please

I didn't say such thing. Actually mjjesamor used "f" word against me (see below quoted post). I pointed out mjjesamor's cursing was more condescending than my basic dictionary definition.

Bangs head off wall...
For you information it means sweet f all to me whether it's a legal or business concept. So what? My point is still the same. Could you be any more condescending!

-----------------------------------

Now when you look at it, you have people like Ivy, reading a post, and responding with "you make a good point" or "It's possible". But then when someone says something that disputes your belief, many of you say it's an "excuse", again, without any reasoning whatsoever.

Personally speaking I think I have a different approach then some. First of all I'm old , with my education and life experience I rather discuss issues intelligently. Life taught me that I'm a human being with mistakes therefore while I share my knowledge I would never assert that I'm perfectly correct - I'll always leave a room for "being human".

That being said I also think that this thread is highly intellectually intriguing and there are some wonderful people (with opposing ideas) that raise such interesting points and can motivate me to investigate and to learn more. They know who they are - I mentioned them both publicly and in some instances reached out to them privately as well.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Watch this new video with Akon, Eddie Cascio, Teddy Riley, 50 Cent, Neff-u and Lenny Kravitz about the Michael album

http://www.deejay.it/dj/music/artist/special/video/965/4412/Michael

- Around 12 minute mark Eddie Cascio mentions that they used the shower as the vocal booth and MJ sang sitting down

I wonder what are effects of that on the voice. I'll do a google search

Edit: apparently you'll have the reverb effect - blurring the voice, bouncing and echo. It will have a bass effect - deeper sounding voice

Music boards call "shower vocal booth" as an "acoustic nightmare" and the worst place to record in (apparently we sound good to ourselves when we sing at a shower but it's a terrible setting to record in) , they say it needs high amounts of absorption material and a total overhaul- hearing that MJ also took showers there I don't think they did any of that.

Sitting down also affects the diaphragm and airflow and affects voice quality. They say it's harder to sing higher notes when sitting down.

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Watching the new documentary, I find it VERY INTERESTING that Eddie says Michael recorded in the shower, sitting on the floor.

That's news to me. Definitely would create a different sound than normal.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

We've given plenty of reasons why we don't think Michael isn't on the songs, you haven't seen them within these countless pages. Here's a short little list:

woohooo a challenge. but ps: Annie actually said people call "believers" posts "excuses" without explaining why they are "excuses". she didn't say you don't have reasons for your opinions.

1. The song being registered after Michael died and not before.

so? brad buxter registered 19 songs after Michael's death one of them which is "Hollywood Tonight". Late registration doesn't equal to fake vocals. (note: "It doesn't sound like Michael" is much more stronger argument than "late registration equals shady" argument)

2. There are barely any high notes or hee hee's on any of the tracks, making us believe that the impersonaotor can't hit he notes Michael can.

demo/ guide vocals are mainly to get the ideas down not to sing the songs perfectly or giving 100%. if you were to record perfectly the first time around then we wouldn't have labels/ differentiation as "demo vocals", "guide vocals", "professional/studio vocals".

3. Jason barely saying anything about the whole thing.

He did. Once through estate statement and once through his manager. He denies every allegation and says that he didn't sing a single note. If he had nothing to do with this what else do you expect him to say? There's not really a million ways to say that "I'm not the one singing".

4. 90% of fans trashing the song seconds after it premiered.

fun times

There's tons more, but what really bothers me is that 80% of the posts in this entire debate thread is made up of people who think it isn't Michael. You could go to any page in this entire debate thread and 80% of the responses on that page are from non-believers like myself.

this is the debate thread , one of the few threads that the vocals issue can be discussed so it's normal that "doubters" posts will be more here as "believers" have multiple other threads.

 

[Mikaeel101]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

That's news to me. Definitely would create a different sound than normal.

What about Michael saying he recorded songs in a PVC pipeline? What about Michael singing Smile outside with his childredn, with no proffessional studio around? What about Michael making Rodney go out and use things from a garage to make beats?

Michael recording in a shower is irrelevant. Regardless where somebody is, it may add an echo, but it's not gonna change your voice that much.

Nuff said!

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^ Recording in that little shower is going to distort your voice a lot more than singing outside with high quality microphones all around you and a professional camera in your face.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

We've given plenty of reasons why we don't think Michael isn't on the songs, you haven't seen them within these countless pages. Here's a short little list:

1. The song being registered after Michael died and not before.

2. There are barely any high notes or hee hee's on any of the tracks, making us believe that the impersonaotor can't hit he notes Michael can.

3. Jason barely saying anything about the whole thing.

4. 90% of fans trashing the song seconds after it premiered.

There's tons more, but what really bothers me is that 80% of the posts in this entire debate thread is made up of people who think it isn't Michael. You could go to any page in this entire debate thread and 80% of the responses on that page are from non-believers like myself.

All of which you mentioned came long before people were calling conflicting reasoning and opinions as "excuses and bullshit". The songs being registered after his death was already discussed, again, with conflicting opinions, many of you feel the fact that they registered them merely a day or two later means that they're fraudulent. Whereas, I and others feel that they're just trying to preserve their work and make sure no one else is able to claim it.

2. Was discussed, what about the falsetto used in KYHU and Stay? Or the one in Monster? Do those not qualify as high notes? You get one hee-hee on the Invincible album, yet all of those songs are Michael, so the lack of "hee-hee's" is irrelevant in this case.

3. Why should he have to? He denied his participation, is he supposed to continue saying the same thing over and over again? I don't believe so.

4. Again already discussed, long before people neglected "respecting one's opinion".

wait: Huh? i don't understand this post at all. it goes straight over my head, i totally don't get it. but i'll give it a shot:

You hear a vocal difference between the original stream and the "new stream" but you can't hear a difference between the singer on the cascio tracks and michael jackson?

how can you even remember the original stream? did you save it on your computer or something? surely, someone must have. i would love for it to be posted so we can all hear how "drastically different" the original stream was.

i don't understand what you're say with "fact 3" at all. like at all. what are you trying to say? coming from my point of view, BN never sounded like michael. Hearing it stripped of instrumentals and processing as an acapella completely cemented that for me. it sounds nothing like him. sooo---what was your point? that the acapella isn't the same as the released track?

I never said that. As far as me remembering the initial stream I do, because I remember thinking to myself "WTF is this?", then I heard Sony's explanation, then I heard the acapella, then I heard the album version. Like I said, there's a difference in vocals, to me, others don't notice it and merely mention the instrumentation and production as being the only different thing between the two, that's fine, again, I wouldn't attempt to change someone else's opinion.

From your point of view, BN never sounded like Michael, keep in mind you don't speak for everyone. Others heard the acapella, and to them, it confirmed that it was Michael on that song. Someone asked how that was a fact, and I pointed out the statements of other doubters, who couldn't believe how many people were convinced that it was Michael, over that acapella.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

circles - circles - circles.. we discussed this right. simply put - they don't have to. still unhappy? - challenge them in court.

Again, you are defending the official position. "They don't have to". George W. Bush "legally" and "officially" waged war against a country which "possessed" weapons of mass destruction . Afterwards they "discovered" it wasn't true. After killing thousands of innocent lives and sending troops to be killed all we conclude is "ooops sorry, there are no weapons of mass destruction"! Does George Bush has to answer for his mistake? No, he doesn't have to. It was legit, official gibberish blablah.

Again, legit and official doesn't rhyme with ethics. And you constantly defend the official stance without questioning it whatsoever. On the contrary you even confirm that they don't have to do anything.

I don't agree that they don't have to. Someone must answer for the mistakes. But the frustrating part is that there is no way to do it on any legal possible way.

Can you sue George Bush for the innocent lives lost in war? You can still try, but you won't win. However when Lewinski sues clinton for a blowjob, she wins in court. What a perfect judicial system, huh?!

Erin Brokowitch's case is completely irrelevant. She had witnesses and victims who united with her. She got proofs.

What proofs do we have? NOTHING! Everything was destroyed! What a coincidence!

Daewoo settling out of court isn't very encouraging. It smells as if someone from SONY paid the responsible ones to keep it quiet and to continue doing what they do -- copies.

By the way,even if anyone brought all this in court and loses the case, all in all, those tracks still don't sound Michael! So going to court won't change anything. Who actually cares going to the court? Why do we even bother talking about going to court when SONY and Estate are supposed to take our reaction into account. After streaming of BN, they didn't take us seriously at all. Oh yeah, they said it was a wrong mix. Yeah right, whatever.

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Would love to hear an hour long interview with Eddie Cascio about his whole experience with MJ and just more about himself... He does seem like a very polite, stable guy. I think he would want Michael to be proud of him and each time I watch him I really have a hard time seeing how he'd betray Michael.


BUMPER... How much money would it cost to silence all these people? Millions? Hundreds of thousands? What? 50,000 dollars? I don't think so...

Let me get this straight... Sony paid big checks to these people to cover up the fact that they faked these songs on an album they hardly promoted and didn't even release any of these songs as singles even though the only reason they faked them is so that they'd be commercially successful? :lol:

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Show me these examples of explaining in detail why things are "excuses" as opposed to logical reasoning. Numerous times have I seen the same posters, over and over again, claim something is a "pathetic excuse, and bullshit" without any reason whatsoever, these comments come in response to a statement made such as, "The voice sounds processed, it's possible that the melodyne and whatever else they used altered the voice to an almost unrecognizable nature". That right there is a logical reason, and like I said before, you wouldn't know anything about it, unless you've worked in a studio and experienced what these programs can do to ones voice. From my understanding, not many of us are professionals in that field, therefore how can you be so quick to write it off as an "excuse" as opposed to a possibility?

You're right, I follow this thread, I see the posts, and not one of them have been respectful to any of our (believers) opinions, NOT ONE. Now when you look at it, you have people like Ivy, reading a post, and responding with "you make a good point" or "It's possible". But then when someone says something that disputes your belief, many of you say it's an "excuse", again, without any reasoning whatsoever. You show me these posts where opinions are respected, or where these "It's an excuse" statements are followed by a logical explanation, and I'll gladly take back what I said. Until then, I'm going to continue speak my mind, based off my own observations in this thread.


This discussion is beyond heated, in fact if more people paid attention to this thread, I'm inclined to believe it may have been closed and locked already. There isn't any debating here, for the most part, just people basically saying "I'm right, you're wrong, no if's, and's, or but's". It's gotten to a point where I've received PM's of people who used to post in this thread, voicing their disdain for that type of logic. It isn't fair, nor should it be allowed, save that for another forum.


In no way am I attempted to turn this into a "Vs." type of situation, and I sincerely apologize for using such examples. But I'm just speaking totally on observation alone.

I cannot agree with you on the bold part. Seriously, you can't find one respectful post from the doubters? Even Ivy admited she's had good discussions with people who have opposite opinions. There are people who put in a good amount of time to come up with their arguments, debate the subject matter in an eloquent and intelligent manner and never get personal. I don't want to name names here. You know who they are. They know who they are. Those posts from the doubters deserved to be acknowledged as well. Those posts should not be filtered out.

People posted links on how Michael sounded just like himself without warmup in numerous occasions. People posted how other musician sound exactly like himself with a cheap microphone. People posted comparison videos. People talked about their studies of Michael's works. You don't need to agree with them. You may not find them logical to you. But, at least the doubters tried to explain their point of views. We don't simply come here scream and yell and trash the Cascio tracks.

I don't understand why you said this thread may have been closed and locked if more people paid attention to it. This thread is still going on because people still have interest in this matter. People still find it interesting to continue with the discussion. The very fact that you just left a post showed you still find it worthwhile to come here.

You mentioned how non-doubters are discouraged to come to this thread anymore. Meanwhile, many doubters are discouraged to come to this forum all together because of the position appeared to be taken by the owner of ths forum. Is it fair? As a matter of fact, I found it unfair that the other three debate threads are closed due to inactivity. I don't see the same policy applied to other thread.

This subject is a heated subject. Many people take this close to heart and argue/debate with passion. Is it justifiable to use some of the harsh language? No, but it is certainly very understandable.

 

[azsummergirl]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I never said that. As far as me remembering the initial stream I do, because I remember thinking to myself "WTF is this?", then I heard Sony's explanation, then I heard the acapella, then I heard the album version. Like I said, there's a difference in vocals, to me, others don't notice it and merely mention the instrumentation and production as being the only different thing between the two, that's fine, again, I wouldn't attempt to change someone else's opinion.

From your point of view, BN never sounded like Michael, keep in mind you don't speak for everyone. Others heard the acapella, and to them, it confirmed that it was Michael on that song. Someone asked how that was a fact, and I pointed out the statements of other doubters, who couldn't believe how many people were convinced that it was Michael, over that acapella.

this is exactly what i mean. you thought "WTF is this?" because it didn't sound like michael jackson to you. you changed your mind because you heard the track again and again and again. you say you heard a difference in the originally streamed track and the acapella and the final track. a lot of the believers say the same thing. it's just not true. there IS no difference in the vocals. it was always the same, you just got more used to hearing it, it became familiar, and so it seemed more like michael.

you gotta learn to trust your initial instincts.

michael was singing sitting down. in a shower. oh, ok then. that explains it.

LISTEN to yourselves. are you for real?

look, i can do it too: i heard he was also singing with a mask on and standing on top of hot coals and being tickled with a feather duster. that's why he sounds like jason malachi. see?

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Would love to hear an hour long interview with Eddie Cascio about his whole experience with MJ and just more about himself... He does seem like a very polite, stable guy. I think he would want Michael to be proud of him and each time I watch him I really have a hard time seeing how he'd betray Michael.


BUMPER... How much money would it cost to silence all these people? Millions? Hundreds of thousands? What? 50,000 dollars? I don't think so...

Let me get this straight... Sony paid big checks to these people to cover up the fact that they faked these songs on an album they hardly promoted and didn't even release any of these songs as singles even though the only reason they faked them is so that they'd be commercially successful? :lol:

Oh well... Sony would rather spend money on hiring two "audiologists" to perform analysis than promoting the album; although Sony had at least three exceptional genuine MJ tracks available.

Also, who knew what truly happened? Is it Sony or the Cascios who arrage the coverup?

 

[serendipity]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ps: honestly I do not know how to explain due diligence better if it's not understood after all this.

They understand, alright........ it just doesn't suit their agenda/theory lol

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I cannot agree with you on the bold part. Seriously, you can't find one respectful post from the doubters? Even Ivy admited she's had good discussions with people who have opposite opinions. There are people who put in a good amount of time to come up with their arguments, debate the subject matter in an eloquent and intelligent manner and never get personal. I don't want to name names here. You know who they are. They know who they are. Those posts from the doubters deserved to be acknowledged as well. Those posts should not be filtered out.

People posted links on how Michael sounded just like himself without warmup in numerous occasions. People posted how other musician sound exactly like himself with a cheap microphone. People posted comparison videos. People talked about their studies of Michael's works. You don't need to agree with them. You may not find them logical to you. But, at least the doubters tried to explain their point of views. We don't simply come here scream and yell and trash the Cascio tracks.

I don't understand why you said this thread may have been closed and locked if more people paid attention to it. This thread is still going on because people still have interest in this matter. People still find it interesting to continue with the discussion. The very fact that you just left a post showed you still find it worthwhile to come here.

You mentioned how non-doubters are discouraged to come to this thread anymore. Meanwhile, many doubters are discouraged to come to this forum all together because of the position appeared to be taken by the owner of ths forum. Is it fair? As a matter of fact, I found it unfair that the other three debate threads are closed due to inactivity. I don't see the same policy applied to other thread.

This subject is a heated subject. Many people take this close to heart and argue/debate with passion. Is it justifiable to use some of the harsh language? No, but it is certainly very understandable.

Saying someone's opinion is nothing more than an "excuse" without explaining why, isn't being respectful, is it? Like you said, people did this people did that, not once has anyone said, "That's an excuse, it's bullshit, these comparisons are illogical". Yet, early in this thread examples of Michael's songs, with the use of Melodyne was shown, ie. Stranger In Moscow, the vocals were drastically different from the album version, it didn't sound how Michael would normally sound, fast forward a few pages, people say "Well Melodyne/processing, could be the reason why this sounds this way" and it's then countered with "That's bullshit, and pathetic", none of us are professional producers, who are we to say whats bullshit and what's pathetic? Another example, videos were posted of Michael singing where he didn't sound 100%, ie. WMA 2006, where the tone of his falsetto was different from anything we've ever heard on an album, how did some of you respond? Once again, "That's pathetic, that's bullshit, he sounds just the same as he always did" even though, other members noticed and admitted to the difference.

Your word is not the be all, end all, this isn't directed to you personally, but they know who they are. So the argument works both ways, believers posted video's, they made their case numerous times with audio, video's, etc. BUT yet, their opinions are nothing more than "excuses" and "bullshit" solely because one doesn't agree? And that's okay to you? Like you said, you don't need to agree with the videos, you don't need to find them logical, but not only have doubters, but believers have expressed and explained their views on numerous occasions, so why is it okay for one side to use the terms "excuses" and "bullshit", when both sides have been doing the same exact thing for almost 300 pages?

this is exactly what i mean. you thought "WTF is this?" because it didn't sound like michael jackson to you. you changed your mind because you heard the track again and again and again. you say you heard a difference in the originally streamed track and the acapella and the final track. a lot of the believers say the same thing. it's just not true. there IS no difference in the vocals. it was always the same, you just got more used to hearing it, it became familiar, and so it seemed more like michael.

you gotta learn to trust your initial instincts.

michael was singing sitting down. in a shower. oh, ok then. that explains it.

LISTEN to yourselves. are you for real?

look, i can do it too: i heard he was also singing with a mask on and standing on top of hot coals and being tickled with a feather duster. that's why he sounds like jason malachi. see?

This right here, is exactly what I'm talking about. Who are you to say something isn't true? Who are you to tell other people what they do and don't hear? Numerous people share the same opinion, that it was a difference in the vocals between the two versions, yet all those people are wrong because you say so? Because you hear something that's different from what they hear? Give me a break.

 

[larry141094]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Sam, i think you need to keep your insults to yourself, keep going the way you are and you might just end up banned again... just saying, anyway, imo all you non-believers are just giving excuses, why haven't any of the Jackson's filed for a civil suit? well? hmmm? "too busy with the current case" i think not, they just refiled the wrongful death suit, and they're going ahead with that

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

There's no need to be rude :doh:

Rude? 'I rather discuss issues intelligently' because of 'my education' is ruder and more condescending than ANYTHING that I've ever written on this board.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Sam, i think you need to keep your insults to yourself, keep going the way you are and you might just end up banned again...

Where have I insulted anyone? Read my post again.

 

[larry141094]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Somehow this is supposed to be politer than me using the term 'bullshit'??? 'I rather discuss issues intelligently' because of 'my education'? Get over yourself! That's ruder than anything I've ever posted. 'With my education'??? Hilarious. If your education leads you to believe Michael Jackson is on those tracks, you can keep it.

The 'wrong mix' excuse is complete bullshit because the vocals were exactly the same. Pentum's got the 'original mix' and guess what? The vocals are identical. That's when a 'logical explanation' becomes an 'excuse'. When it's found out to be nothing more than a cover-up.

So Michael is recording in the shower, now??? What is that about? Who's going to believe that? In the shower?

And AnnieRUOkay adds nothing to the debate other than the occasional condescending post telling people how to debate. She rarely offers her own opinion. And we now know her own opinion has gone through one huge paradigm shift without an explanation. So work that one out, if you can.

Excuses. That's all I've heard. A whole series of them. Yet the audio still sounds the same. Funny that.

 

[larry141094]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Cant people just accept that these tracks are Michael done in bad quality? because using the Jason comparison videos doesn't prove anything because we all hear something different