Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
The burden of proof lies within the doubters. Believer's have proof, but it's of the obvious kind and the type you aren't looking for.
Proof #1, can be considered as the copyright registrations, the fact that Studio recordings, and sounds is included in the description of the material, under Michael Jackson's name. Again, that's obvious and isn't "proof" to some of you, in a court of law though, it would hold more weight than "these snorts are identical".
Based on the discussion in the last few pages, copy right registraions serve more as proof of creativity ownership, NOT proof of authenticity. Just because the materials are registered under Michael Jackson's name does not necessary mean Michaal Jackson sang all the lead vocals as claimed by Sony, especially when the registrations are filed after his death. Does the US copyright office verify authenticity?
I don't think this "proof" is as obvious as you claimed. I agree this holds more weight in court though.
Proof #2, would be the Estate signing off on these songs for commercial released, combined with them and Sony not backing away from their claims, but instead reinforcing them through a press release, and under their own words, had this analysis conducted which 100% supported their initial conclusion. Again, more obvious proof, that has been presented and quickly dismissed by doubters.
We have discussed so many times before that just because it's "official" do not mean it's true.
If official words mean the truth, then we all shall believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
This is not proof of authenticity. This is just a claim made by Sony.
Proof #3, and the most important would be Malachi issuing statements through his manager, which basically state "it ain't me".
I don't understand how a statment made by Malachi's manager serves as proof that Michael Jackson sang in the Cascio tracks. Say the manager was telling the truth that Malachi did not sing on the tracks. Does it mean there is no other vocals imposer who could sing in the tracks?
Again, this is just a claim, not proof.
Proof #4, last but not least, is we know Michael stayed there, we know Michael recorded there, the contents of such sessions were never made public until now, so we're led to believe. Now if these aren't the songs that Michael and the Cascio's recorded together, than where are they? Why would they keep genuine MJ songs secret, for the sake of committing a universal fraud? Again this is all obvious proof, and not of the sorts that doubter's are requesting.
Why are we led to believe that Michael recorded the Cascio tracks just because he stayed there? How do we know that Michael did record songs with the Cascios? How do we know there was indeed genuine MJ songs created with the Cascios?
Again, how is it an "obvious proof"?
You want materialistic proofs, being photo's of the sessions with Michael recording, you want the findings of forensic audio test's to be made public, you want songs from Michael that sound similar to these. In a nutshell you want the man himself to appear and just say, "yep, that's me!"
And until that last bolded line happens, this debate will continue. Because if and when those forensic results are made public, I can guarantee at least half of the doubters side of the fanbase will say the results were edited in some way, shape, or form.
Don't make assumption so prematurely. Many of us are able to exercise reasonable judgements. If we are indeed presented with OBVIOUS PROOF showing Michael Jackson did sing in the songs, I would be the first one to admit I am wrong and swallow my pride.
However, thus far, four months after the controversy broke. No one has shown us any tangible support, while they can't wait to show tiny trace of Michael's involvement in all other songs on the album.
unk:
