Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
according to Teddy Riley 2000 watts isn't really processed. He says Michael sang it that way and it has only one effect on it. so I really wouldn't consider that song to be "processed".
Nobody doubts 2000watts anyway, I even don't know why people (most of the time) non-doubters evoke this song at all actually.
I'll be the devils advocate here and say how is that any different that some people on this thread comparing Cascio's to the likes of Chandlers and Arvizos?
If you play the devil's advocate, try maybe by asking the good questions from the starters before pointing out that the Cascio were compared to Arvizos or Chandlers. As a matter of fact the Cascios
WERE NOT compared neither to the Chandlers nor to the Arvizos.
What
WAS compared is a series of incidens that Michael endured in his life with his so called friends, implying that no one around Michael can be trusted 100%, including the Cascios.
The examples of such incidents were the Arvizos, the Chandlers, but also Bashir, Rabbi Schmuley or the spoon bender Uri Geller, as much as actually Latoya Jackson, Jermaine Jackson and Randy Jackson or even Joe Jackson.
What most of the fans seem to forget is that the Cascios indeed
seem to have never showed greed towards Michael when he was alive, but now that he's dead, who can vouch for this family when they got no proof whatsoever and all of sudden are cashing in millions of dollars over MJ's dead body with questionable songs?
All the above mentioned families and people were not used to equal them with the Cascios, but with a situation which could turn into a profit game at a certain moment of Michael's life/death.
Wasn't the argument that as people sold Michael they could have sold him as well? Didn't some people concluded that they were lying based on take on the body language in Oprah interview?
Body language was not the only criterion. Actually, the body language did nothing else but confirmed the lack of any kind of convincing words, as for example any technical aspect that Michael could have instructed Eddie to do during those 12! songs. Pushing buttons? Really? Is that technical? Why don't you play devil's advocate when Eddie doesn't provide any proof whatsoever?
Everybody on this thread comes to many conclusions based on their guts, the vibes, their ears etc without the need for solid evidence. I think we can let people have their own gut feelings and vibes even though they might not be in sync with ours, can't we?
No we can't. We are not haveing a debate based on our guts but based on some more serious arguments than simple guts. I can more easily accept someone who says that common sense leads her/him to believe that it is Michael Jackson singing those songs than someone who says the guts tell him?
The same goes for the doubters, our common sense is seriously doubting Eddie's so called proof or rather the excuses of their absence.
