ivy;3374254 said:
Comments about TPIMaster's comparison videos that we in detail discussed about the flow etc. It's me examining the vocals and reprocessing information.
Yeah, you examined them by saying that the style is different, and simply ignoring the fact that the voice IS same.
ivy;3374254 said:
I'm a 35 year old independent female. I have never thought that I must go with the general opinion. So sorry but "huge number of fans" wouldn't be a factor for me. I'll have my independent personal opinion while not caring how favorable or how agreeable it is.
The band that I worked for had a song with the lyrics of (rough translation) "walking on the same path as everyone equals to being nobody". Let's just say I agree
You are completely twisting my argument. Can you quote me where have I ever said that anyone should follow the majority? The only reason why I used the phrase " a huge number" is because you said in your argument "according to you". I replied "not according to me only!"
Now we are not debating a philosophical issue here, but a fact. If the majority of people see green, it is not red nor vice versa, unless you are color blind, which means that the majority is to be trusted. By the majority, I don't take into account average Joe who wouldn't make a difference between olive green and leaf green.
Furthermore you stated yourself that
you don't have a musical ear in another thread and that you were unable to judge if you heard MJ on Breaking News.
When the official statement from SONY and Estate was released, you simply agreed with them -- and that's what is your opinion based on, the things that you've been told to swallow as the truth. And you are talking about being independant? It's a bit contradicting. So who really is independent and who follows the opinions of others?
Let me just remind you, in case you forgot, that the majority of people I am talking about --the ones who don't hear Michael-- they never read each other beforehand to come up with their opinion. We all coincidentally realized we were hearing the same thing -NOT MICHAEL. So it has absolutely nothing to do with following a majority whatsoever. It is more a blindcolor case for the minority than what you are suggesting blindly following the crowd. Nobody's following nobody, we're all following our ears. Those who tried to believe the official version are more and more opening their eyes and more and more trust their ears. But of course, if you don't have a musical ear, you can't but trust what the officials say rather than the fans of the very man who know his voice better than any audiologist that is there.
ivy;3374254 said:
I said parts with supporting additional vocals.
Are they all credited? I wonder if you could point out where you hear Michael and where you hear additional vocals. You didn't show me that.
ivy;3374254 said:
My opinion is that Jason is overrated and during a song can sound like Michael for 20% but on the other 80% cannot sound like Michael. I believe the vocals have differences in styles (again go back and see my posts after TPImaster's comparisons)
Hello Ivy, this is supposed to sound like MJ, so what do you expect? To hear Jason Malachi singing like himself or like Michael Jackson? Of course the style is different. It is supposed to be different. So it is perfectly understandable. But saying that Jason is overrated when you know that there are songs such as mamacita and Let me let go, or evene Hydraulix, I think that you aren't being realistic there at all. Jason, despite all the trash about him that you can read in this thread is perfectly able to fool people and still does.
Jason's a cappella aren't that bad, and studios can do wonders with his voice in order to fool people.
ivy;3374254 said:
Already did. Remember I said I questioned the additional vocals (again remember I said parts Michael) and whether they were legit or not.
Well, the few seconds of questioning was to conclude that you hear Michael and that all was legit. But of course you backed your opinion also by the fact that it was completely normal not to have any trace of any other demo, which in the end makes the number of unfortunate "coincidences" sound as normal too, instead of questioning them.
ivy;3374254 said:
Are you reading my posts? I said I heard parts Micheal , I said I believe there was additional supplemental vocals and I even talked about double tracking and mixing the second vocal -5, -6db to make it "not hear able". As I never said 100% Michael , I refrained from calling it like 100% Michael.
Why do you refrain? Why can't you say it is 100% Michael on a MJ album when it comes to lead vocals? Where is that you hear Michael and where is that you hear the second vocal? Are all vocals credited?
ivy;3374254 said:
No. See TPIMaster giving me one example of flow in Jason's songs and I'm replying as "yes it's close to what I mean". When I acknowledge the similarity, how could be denying it? Please give credit when it's due.
You ackowledged the "similarity"? The "similarity"???? It is not similar. It is exactly the SAME voice. So what credit are you talking about. Acknowledging similarity doesn't mean that you ackowledge to hear the same vocal.
ivy;3374254 said:
Still although there are similarities I also hear the differences (that some of you call "subtle")
Well of course, they did all to make them sound MJ. But they failed. Copy-pasted MJ's little sounds here and there + 1001 excuses surrounding the ideas and conditions under which the tracks had been recorded. But at the same time they claimed to be the most completed ones. They surely are -- Jason had never such bombastic songs in his career, thanks Teddy.
ivy;3374254 said:
No. I'm saying that guide vocals and finished vocals are two different things. I furthermore gave the example from my real life that our vocalist recording in a "I don't care" mood sounding "flat". My real life experience makes me believe that it's an explainable situation by the fact that these are guide vocals.
YOur theory is in complete opposition with what may be considered the most completed songs as claimed by SONY. And please don't try to twist what is complete and what not. We all know what means complete. We heard STTR, BLUE GANGSTA, and other snippets around, we know that there are more finished songs than those Cascio monstahs, yet the latter were preferred to the ones that have been leaked. Duh!
ivy;3374254 said:
and you are free to have that opinion. just as I should be free to have mine.
Why are you even speaking about freedom of opinion? Having the freedom of opinion in a debate means nothing at all. Any moron (I am not refering to you) can have an opinion, and then what? Many people defend the freedom of opinion as if their freedom was threatened. Well, the freedom is absolutely not threatened, but your illogiocal opinions are. It is not because someone changes the opinion that it means he or she lost his/her freedom of opinion. So, let's stop playing the victims when "defending the right to freedom to opinion". No one has been sent to jail here for their opinion.
ivy;3374254 said:
technically we can discuss many things about plagiarism. Perhaps the singer got authorization for using it? I mean several people covered MJ's songs with permission - Alien Ant Farm, Fall out boy, Weird Al, Simpson's, Flintstone kids etc etc. I asked if the lyrics were the same to see if it's a cover or not (which would have been more obvious plagiarism) but I never got the answer to make a more informed determination. Honestly I didn't know that it was a "real singer" and I'm assuming it's a "real album" then? Without knowing real singer / real album thing I said that I haven't seen musicians take action against fans covering their songs as it has no malice and no profit aim.
If you are saying to me that "that's a professional singer, put that song a released album that he sold for profit without any permission" that changes everything
My point was that instead of simply admitting to agreeing that there is plagiarism, you rather opted to defend the opposite --as not being the plagiarism, without even knowing if it was fan made or not. And that's the negativity and defeatism that I was referring to when I read your comments. But always to the detriment of MJ and millions of excuses in favor of frauds such as Eddy, Teddy, Sony, or singers who plagiarized.
Can't you see that manu Dibango sued Michael for a sucking simple pharse Mamasemamasmomakoosah as plagiarism on the one hand, and you saying that Thriller and Bad videos aren't plagiarism damaging seriosuly MJ's songs on the videos I posted (set aside the mockery), how can't you see that your arguments go against MJ by finding it perfectly legal and talking about the fact that the law doesn't intervene for dead people. I am talking music and video, and you are completely ommiting that by shifting onto Michael's death and the impossibility to do anything. So if I follow your logic I can dowloand any MJ song for free, he's dead. But then no, you would shift back and say it's illegal. Your arguments are just like an eel, they always slip away from the real problem and are focused on the secondary ones when it comes to damage done to MJ (be it the Cascios, Teddy or any other video I posted or comparison that TPI or Pentum posted or whatever else).
ivy;3374254 said:
see this is the thing that you are still confusing. You act like the persons or entity that can remove Reddy Teddy and plagiarism videos are the same and have questionable priorities. I'm saying to you that one is Sony and the other one is Cascio / Porte. So we can discuss about Sony's ineffective or even worse "do nothing" approach about plagiarism but how is that in any way relevant to what Cascio / Porte can ask to be removed? And isn't our discussion is about what Jab Me Music is asking to be removed? So again how any action or inaction from Sony is relevant?
How? How about the fact that SONY bought the music from the Cascio and that is the music that we have on Michael? Is that relevant enough to you? What is jab Me Music claiming when removing the video anyway? How about the fact that SONY Was after two members here and required to ban them for life? Of course, all that makes sense to you. The tiniest things are being witchhunted, but the bigger issues not. Jab Me Music removing a video for a single photo of Eddie??? Yeah right, that makes sense.
ivy;3374254 said:
Think about it like the "complaint" feature on this forum. You are "Sony" who never complaints and Cascio/ Porte is that user X that reports everything they can. Different parties , different behaviors.
I know what you are saying, but it sounds again as an excuse in favor of the Cascios.
They removed a video for a simple picture of Eddie! They really do have time, don't they? But of course they don't have time to provide any substantial proof to stop those comparisons or videos being made and released all over youtube and internet. "It's Michael". "I pushed the buttons". "No one can scream like that" Scream? As in copy-pasted??? Or as in Jason Malachi? Very "believable" statements. Well you do believe them, yet you are speaking about independence of your opinion. It just doesn't fit. Sorry.
ivy;3374254 said:
This is twisting my words. I said that musicians find "fan made" tributes/ covers as flattering. Ever heard of the saying "Imitation is the Highest Form of Flattery" ?
Well you jumped to conclusions without even knowing if it was fan made. You were spontaneously more inclined to believe that I was wrong and thus you were finding an excuse as fan-made, than admitting simply it was plagiarism. You were caught in your own way of thinking not giving me credit when I posted the videos and you already had an answer to contradict me for the pleasure of it.
ivy;3374254 said:
see 2 above. I thought that was a fan made cover. and generally no musician would take action towards it. Let me give a recent example : Have you heard of Maria Aragon and her Lady Gaga Cover (see here :
http://youtu.be/xG0wi1m-89o) . Is it copyright infringement? Yes it is. Would there be any complaint against it? Nope. Lady Gaga would tweet about it, call her, invite her to a concert and sing a duet with her.
Irrelevant. I never posted a fan made video. The singers might be MJ's fans, but surely they are professional singers.
ivy;3374254 said:
Again as I though it was a fan made cover I -from general principle- deducted that there wouldn't be any complaints against it. If you are saying it's a professional singer with an aim to make money from releasing it then it's a totally different thing.
"From general principle"? What's that? There is a general principle when someone posts a video and tells you it's plagiarism? In other words, you compeltely ignored what I said in the first place. You defended them as fan made, and when realized they are professional made, you talk about "general principle"? Wow, that's what I call a skillful excuse not to admit you were wrong.
ivy;3374254 said:
That's half the reality. there are many people that hear Michael and say that it's Michael as well, gave their names to statement. Why reject them from the reality? Why selective?
I am not selective, I am referring to the reaction of the fans when Breaking News was streamed. Afterwards, many were influenced by SONY/ESTATE statement. of course, if you take into account average Joes you will have your majority.
ivy;3374254 said:
The reality is that we are divided and some hear Michael some don't. Some experts say it's Michael and some don't.
The reality is that it is alarming to hear that even experts doubt. The slightest doubt is already a very bad sign. But again, whether we like it or not, I'd trust rather an MJ fan than any expert non MJ fan. The reality is that experts aren't that familiar with MJ's voice. Those experts are theory experts, but MJ's fans are on-the-field experts.
ivy;3374254 said:
finished song versus not finished song.
Excuse n° zillion.
ivy;3374254 said:
Doesn't HT also have Billie Jean in it? Do you think Michael would have left it there if the was able to finish the song? This is no different than that.
It is completely different. On HT you hear Billie Jean's beat and that's it. No melody, no vocals, no lyrics. So again, your argument sounds like excuse n°zillion³
ivy;3374254 said:
Why would I blame them for division in fan community? I would blame the record executives for that , Sony who reportedly put their foot down and said that they wanted these songs regardless of controversy and what Jackons said. They knew the issues and still went forward for it.
Why blame Eddie and teddy? You don't see a single reason to blame them but you see myriads of reasons to tiny and insignificant things that have been removed from youtube?
ivy;3374254 said:
And I said multiple times if I was running Sony I would omit these songs just to avoid controversy and that I hoped we never live through a similar event in the future. I also said that I wished that there was more transparency. I blame Sony for this division and I openly said so multiple times before.
Well they are a business company, they really do not give a damn. At least Teddy and Eddie should care more. But apprently they don't.
ivy;3374254 said:
I have no problem with being wrong and I have no desire to be right. Ask around - people pm me after reading my posts and say find my arguments meaningful and convincing. I tell them all I have no desire in having people "to follow my opinions" and they should listen to their hearts in this subject.
Right, and people pm me saying that I am in complete denial, that my posts don't make any sense and that I am all but convincing. They also call me a cunning fox. I tell them, all I desire is that people follow me so we can make a conspiracy theorist sect from which I could benefit trust and money and over which I will rule and have absolute power. I'm bad.
ivy;3374254 said:
You might even call me a defender but I have no desire to defend anyone. I have an opinion and I simply say it. I might be right , I might be wrong after all I'm human. I'm not seeking followers and I do not aim to change any one's opinion. I don't even believe it's doable.
No need to call you a defender, you are doing it yourself with your posts.
ivy;3374254 said:
Well to me it's clear. I think as for the lead it's Michael with supporting additional vocals (probably Porte as at least one). I think there are overdubbing, double tracking going on and this additional vocals is used to supplement Michael. If you back to my first post after breaking news streamed you will see me saying that I'm confused as I partly hear Michael and partly don't. That has been my position from day one.
I know. You also said in the same thread that you didn't have a musical ear and that you couldn't judge properly. Yet you are standing behind tons of official theories and claim to hear Michael Jackson emphasizing that you have right to your opinion as if that right was threatened.
ivy;3374254 said:
and I didn't know that we had to pick either 100% Michael or 100% not Michael position and say stuff like "oh I'm absolute, I'll cut my hand if I'm wrong". In life there's black and white and there's also several shades of gray. I'm happily gray
In life yes. But we're not talking about life. We're talking about lead vocals. It is either MJ's genuine song or impostors voice with MJ's pasted voice here and there. And there is no happily gray that will ever be defendable in those tracks.
ivy;3374254 said:
If difference of opinions is respected why should they blamed? Not agree with - fine but why "blame"? Why the hostility ?
Because inevitabely, one is hurting Michael's legacy, the other is defending it. Now, there's no hostilty, but the zeal to find out the truth. And making zillion excuses creating a bigger gap between fans, rather than trusting non-colorblind is just making it worse for MJ's legacy.
