Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

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

You guys, let's have enough of that. People reported what they were told at the time by informants who were letting info slip by. They were not always kept up to the minute on everything. When they were quiet, they were ridiculed. So, finally Gaz said they could speak with the disclaimer that everyone understood that things could change at any minute. But guess what? They were still ridiculed. It's not always about lying, but maybe about not being kept constantly in the loop and reporting info that is unknowingly outdated.
Let's not start the track down a thread of bashing those who gave us information. Please.

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

ginvid said:
Let's not start the track down a thread of bashing those who gave us information. Please.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

No, but by all means, let's bash those who purposedly feed us lies, just to feel important.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ginvid said:
You guys, let's have enough of that. People reported what they were told at the time by informants who were letting info slip by. They were not always kept up to the minute on everything. When they were quiet, they were ridiculed. So, finally Gaz said they could speak with the disclaimer that everyone understood that things could change at any minute. But guess what? They were still ridiculed. It's not always about lying, but maybe about not being kept constantly in the loop and reporting info that is unknowingly outdated.
Let's not start the track down a thread of bashing those who gave us information. Please.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

As I am not ridiculing anyone, I must disagree with your statement.

On the contrary, I take this matter seriously and actually I would prefer people to come forward and say it clearly than hiding behind the past issue argument. No one is keeping track of who said what, however, when someone says that there is going to be a meeting about the impostor, it is not something you mishear or something that you drop that easy.

Either people stand behind what they reported or have guts to clearly admit they lied. If they lied, then fine. No one is going to sue them. But till they haven't admitted "a" or "b", we are entitled to expect further info about the impostor related meeting at SONY.

My question is extremely simple and aims no ridiculing whatsoever:

Was there a meeting about the impostor or not?
Subquestion:
a) If yes, what was said?
b) If not, why such info was clearly reported? (Allow me to remind, it is not an opinion, it is a piece of info that was reported as a fact!)

p.s. A statement from Smooth indeed has followed explaining that it was his uncle's opinion about an impostor. But my question about the meeting has never ever been answered so far.

p.p.s. Thanks to Smooth we know that his uncle believes that it is an impostor on the Cascio tracks. Let's not forget that his uncle works at SONY, which means that there probably are more poeople working for SONY believeing it is an impostor on those tracks. The controversy isn't only within the MJ community.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I feel the issue here is that things keep getting swept under the carpet as if we're supposed to ignore it and not ask questions. There are still A LOT of unanswered questions and we're just searching for the answers...
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Arklove said:
I feel the issue here is that things keep getting swept under the carpet as if we're supposed to ignore it and not ask questions. There are still A LOT of unanswered questions and we're just searching for the answers...
Click to expand...

Exactly, my question for example is:

How are you? :D
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Arklove said:
I feel the issue here is that things keep getting swept under the carpet as if we're supposed to ignore it and not ask questions. There are still A LOT of unanswered questions and we're just searching for the answers...
Click to expand...

NOTHING HAPPENED, EVERYTHING'S OK.

hkh0009l.jpg
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
NOTHING HAPPENED, EVERYTHING'S OK.

hkh0009l.jpg
Click to expand...

:lmao: So silly...lol..

But, yes, this pretty much describes the current situation :fear:
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ginvid said:
You guys, let's have enough of that. People reported what they were told at the time by informants who were letting info slip by. They were not always kept up to the minute on everything. When they were quiet, they were ridiculed. So, finally Gaz said they could speak with the disclaimer that everyone understood that things could change at any minute. But guess what? They were still ridiculed. It's not always about lying, but maybe about not being kept constantly in the loop and reporting info that is unknowingly outdated.
Let's not start the track down a thread of bashing those who gave us information. Please.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

plus please do not accuse people of "working for X/Y/Z". It has become a common pattern to accuse people for working for someone to discredit them. As you might know we as a website and staff get attacked by similar comments. so please refrain from accusing people with no proof.


My question is extremely simple and aims no ridiculing whatsoever:

Was there a meeting about the impostor or not?
Subquestion:
a) If yes, what was said?
b) If not, why such info was clearly reported? (Allow me to remind, it is not an opinion, it is a piece of info that was reported as a fact!)
Click to expand...

Now I have no inside source whatsoever but isn't it logically obvious that such "meetings" has happened?

Let's think logically -
a) estate statement and the words of some Jackson's - concerns of vocals introduced to the estate /sony
b) estate / sony possibly discusses this issue - a meeting
c) they arrange listening sessions for Michael's musician collaborators, get expert reports etc
d) RF says parties tried to come to an agreement, several Jackson's said that they said their opinions
e) which means probably another meeting or communication chain about the subject
f) breaking news streams
g) RF reports that the talks go on to finalize the album tracklist
h) which means another meeting or communication chain
i) what is said? Isn't it also obvious in the end of the day regardless of the claims about the vocals they believed them to be legit and decided to include them in the album? that's the result of any and all meetings IMO.

so yeah I would expect logically that the concerns about the vocals is discussed by the parties multiple times in multiple different ways.

do you really expect sony/estate deal with this with no communication whatsoever? I wouldn't? and what does it mean to you that if they did? they received a complaint , a concern , it's logical and expected that they would sit down and talk about it.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

yay... the exchange of long posts between ivy and bumper is back. :dancin:
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ivy said:
plus please do not accuse people of "working for X/Y/Z". It has become a common pattern to accuse people for working for someone to discredit them. As you might know we as a website and staff get attacked by similar comments. so please refrain from accusing people with no proof.




Now I have no inside source whatsoever but isn't it logically obvious that such "meetings" has happened?

Let's think logically -
a) estate statement and the words of some Jackson's - concerns of vocals introduced to the estate /sony
b) estate / sony possibly discusses this issue - a meeting
c) they arrange listening sessions for Michael's musician collaborators, get expert reports etc
d) RF says parties tried to come to an agreement, several Jackson's said that they said their opinions
e) which means probably another meeting or communication chain about the subject
f) breaking news streams
g) RF reports that the talks go on to finalize the album tracklist
h) which means another meeting or communication chain
i) what is said? Isn't it also obvious in the end of the day regardless of the claims about the vocals they believed them to be legit and decided to include them in the album? that's the result of any and all meetings IMO.

so yeah I would expect logically that the concerns about the vocals is discussed by the parties multiple times in multiple different ways.

do you really expect sony/estate deal with this with no communication whatsoever? I wouldn't? and what does it mean to you that if they did? they received a complaint , a concern , it's logical and expected that they would sit down and talk about it.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your effort in giving logical thoughts. But as I stated, we need facts of what happened, not thoughts of what probably (or not) happened.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
yay... the exchange of long posts between ivy and bumper is back. :dancin:
Click to expand...

haha...the thread is alive again! :bounce:

But for how long? :fear:
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
I appreciate your effort in giving logical thoughts. But as I stated, we need facts of what happened, not thoughts of what probably (or not) happened.
Click to expand...

and who do you expect can give you those facts? Smooth's uncle?

Only the people that are on the very top and/or involved in the project will know the details and/or facts that you have requested and we don't have that sources here.

The rest will be hearsay or what people heard through the grapevine.

Again my understanding about smooth's source (his uncle) was that he wasn't directly involved in the project and what he brought in was nothing more than hearsay hence the issues / concerns about the credibility of the source and correctness of the information.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ivy said:
and who do you expect can give you those facts? Smooth's uncle?

Only the people that are on the very top and/or involved in the project will know the details and/or facts that you have requested and we don't have that sources here.

The rest will be hearsay or what people heard through the grapevine.

Again my understanding about smooth's source (his uncle) was that he wasn't directly involved in the project and what he brought in was nothing more than hearsay hence the issues / concerns about the credibility of the source and correctness of the information.
Click to expand...

When you have such level of confidence in someone's word from SONY that you publicly ask to be literally banned from MJJ Community if the reported info is incorrect, then it is a foolish thing to do so, knowing that the source is supposedly nothing more than a hearsay!

I asked Smooth on several occasions in different forums about that meeting he mentioned. He has always completely ignored my questions.
I do not expect Smooth's uncle to come and speak, but the one who started speaking about his uncle i.e. Smooth himself.

Indeed, Smooth justified himself later on that it was only his uncle's opinion about the 50% impostor voice (despite the fact that in his post he used the emphasizing auxilary SONY DID HIRE AN IMPOSTOR --as if to confirm the veracity of the fact).

Regarding the meeting, Smooth never ever reported what was said and what was planned about that impostor's voice he was actually refering to.

On top of that Korgnex came and said that such meeting never took place!? Now, does Korgnex know Smooth's uncle? Does Korgnex work at SONY? It is rather confusing and completely illogical.

Hence, no one is aimed to be ridiculed, but asked to be consistent with such serious info they post.

I can only conclude that, we do not need any logical thinking whatsoever, because we already have done that. We need to know the facts from the very people who were spreading such news.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

AnnieRUOkay89 said:
Funny that you say this, because scientifically, it really is.
Click to expand...

So, all the same after repeatedly hearing the Cascio songs on an official MJ album, what do you think your brain will start to believe/hear?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
So, all the same after repeatedly hearing the Cascio songs on an official MJ album, what do you think your brain will start to believe/hear?
Click to expand...



It'll hear whatever you want it to hear. But when one's own belief and hearing is constantly disputed with comparison clips, it's easy for one to be influenced otherwise. The theory coincides with some studies, which I just thought was funny.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
When you have such level of confidence in someone's word from SONY that you publicly ask to be literally banned from MJJ Community if the reported info is incorrect, then it is a foolish thing to do so, knowing that the source is supposedly nothing more than a hearsay!

I asked Smooth on several occasions in different forums about that meeting he mentioned. He has always completely ignored my questions.
I do not expect Smooth's uncle to come and speak, but the one who started speaking about his uncle i.e. Smooth himself.

Indeed, Smooth justified himself later on that it was only his uncle's opinion about the 50% impostor voice (despite the fact that in his post he used the emphasizing auxilary SONY DID HIRE AN IMPOSTOR --as if to confirm the veracity of the fact).

Regarding the meeting, Smooth never ever reported what was said and what was planned about that impostor's voice he was actually refering to.

On top of that Korgnex came and said that such meeting never took place!? Now, does Korgnex know Smooth's uncle? Does Korgnex work at SONY? It is rather confusing and completely illogical.

Hence, no one is aimed to be ridiculed, but asked to be consistent with such serious info they post.

I can only conclude that, we do not need any logical thinking whatsoever, because we already have done that. We need to know the facts from the very people who were spreading such news.
Click to expand...

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

AnnieRUOkay89 said:
It'll hear whatever you want it to hear. But when one's own belief and hearing is constantly disputed with comparison clips, it's easy for one to be influenced otherwise. The theory coincides with some studies, which I just thought was funny.
Click to expand...

You are miscomparing facts here. The doubts arose before the comparison clips, not after.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I think that with the revelation of the "Hollywood Tonight" demo, we can see how much melodyne can do to a voice. It probably helps understand the Cascio tracks more for the doubters. Just think about it, how different MJ sounded in the demo compared to the final product, it's not large but still a difference.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Jesta said:
I think that with the revelation of the "Hollywood Tonight" demo, we can see how much melodyne can do to a voice. It probably helps understand the Cascio tracks more for the doubters. Just think about it, how different MJ sounded in the demo compared to the final product, it's not large but still a difference.
Click to expand...

Everyone agreed Hollywood Tonight was Michael though, thats the thing. It still had his accent phrasing etc. all the things that have been mentioned to death. The Cascio tracks do not.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

MJultimatemusiclegen said:
Everyone agreed Hollywood Tonight was Michael though, thats the thing. It still had his accent phrasing etc. all the things that have been mentioned to death. The Cascio tracks do not.
Click to expand...

Totally with your opinion.

The Cascio tracks sounds like Jason Malachi.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I must be the only one that thinks that these tracks don't sound like Malachi... Oh, well.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I wish we could get Monster and KYHU a cappella. That would've been awesome.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Jesta said:
I must be the only one that thinks that these tracks don't sound like Malachi... Oh, well.
Click to expand...

You arn't really, i am a doubter, but i'm not totally convinced it's Malachi. But if i was to say whether it sounds more like Jason or Michael, i'd say Jason.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
You are miscomparing facts here. The doubts arose before the comparison clips, not after.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about when the doubts started. I just found Dorian's statement funny to me because some say that's what it is. Whether you believe something or not, having it drilled into your mind with similar methods, such as repeating the same thing over and over again, there's a chance some may end up with a different idea. I just found the theory funny, I didn't mention when doubts began, nor did I issue the statement to ignite further arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top