</SPAN>
When you re-read your posts, have you realized how contradictive your points are?</SPAN>
At one point, you told people to set a lower expectation for the Cascio tracks, as they are just demos/guide vocals – not full blown MJ efforts. </SPAN>
At another point, you said Monster is great and is among MJ’s best.</SPAN>
So, which is it? It can’t be both. It’s “either-or.” By saying the Cascio tracks are demos/guide vocals, one automatically refutes the second claim. </SPAN>
Now, if you think my statement is not true. By all means, counter it. Tell me what you think. Why it’s true that Monster is among Michael’s best effort? What makes you think that? Is it the vocal range? Is it the tone of his voice? Is it the composition? Is it the instrumentation? There are OBJECTIVE criteria you can use to validate your opinion, instead of saying “it’s my opinion.” </SPAN>
I really hope that people can stop saying fans are at war. This thread has been in existence for more than a year. We’ve came a long way. We are all victims. We don’t come here to attack each other. Despite our difference in this topic, we are all fans. We are here for the same man. There isn’t any war. Heated conversation, yes. War, no. Since when heated conversation means war? I can have a very heated conversation with you here. But, if I were to meet you tomorrow and talk about other topics, we probably will have a very good time. </SPAN>
Also, we have learned to understand each other much better now than a year ago. But, have you read my entire posts? Have you tried to understand my points? Have you thought about the examples that I gave? </SPAN>
</SPAN>
People’s perception and interpretation are subjective. I totally agree with that. Our perception is shaped by our background and culture. However, quality in business does not only have a pragmatic interpretation, but also an objective attribute that is measurable.</SPAN>
The above quote is above people’s expectation and perception. However, there are measurable objective data that are not influenced by people’s perception. For instance, quality in automobile can be measured by mileage per gallon of gas, how good the automobile handles impact, etc. Quality in clothing can be measured by craftsmanship, fit and material used. Quality in medical care can be measured by death rate, length of hospital stay, emergency room wait time, cost of care. There are OBJECTIVE measures to determine quality in business world. If not, BMW can spend all its money on hiring Tom Cruise and George Clooney to appear on commercials to build an image and influence people’s perceptions and forget about mechanical engineering to improve actual performance of its sedans and SUV’s. </SPAN>
As a person with accounting background (Accounting is a business discipline. Contrary to the stereotype, I don’t count beans. I used to practice in public – I examined other companies’ financial records as an independent auditor.) I can tell you quality is not solely based on people’s subjective expectations, but can be measured against an established set of standards.</SPAN>
For instance, in a hypothetical situation, say I was to examine the financial record of Lehman Brothers. I couldn’t draw a conclusion based on the company’s reputation and history. Of course I could set appropriate expectation (expectation would be low since the real estate market was tumbling and mortgage backed securities were way overvalued), but it would be unethical for me to say Lehman Brothers’ financial heath was great since the book was in better shape than my expectation. I have to assess the quality of the financial health of Lehman Brothers, based on objective measurable financial data, such as per share earnings, debt-to-asset ratio, liquidity, etc., not based on my own perceptions. Lehman Brothers had to prepare the accounting information according to generally accepted accounting principles. I, as an auditor, had to audit the book according to generally accepted auditing standards (or, more precisely, standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).) Why these principles and standards are “generally accepted”? Because they are objective and bias free. Different people will come to similar conclusion if adhering to the same standards. Lehman could hire me or another auditor to perform the audit, if the other auditor and I assessed the same objective data adhering to the same rules, we would come to the same conclusion. Doesn’t matter if we speak the same language, come from the same city. We could have very different perceptions, but similar assessments.
</SPAN>
People can always say Hyundai is better than Mercedez Benz. But, that doesn’t mean the statement is true. As a matter of fact, it can be easily refuted if people start to cite measurable attributes like re-sell value, mileage, accident rate, etc… </SPAN>
People’s perception to quality is subjective. But, if I ask people to pick the best car based on a certain measurable attributes, not based on their perceptions, then the answers will be much more consistent.
</SPAN>
Isn’t this my whole point? That a Nike t-shirt can not be compared to an art-piece like an Alexander McQueen dress? Say, Monster is a Nike t-shirt and Earth Song is an Alexander McQueen dress, how the two can be compared? If they can’t be compared, how can people say Monster is among MJ’s best? They are not saying Monster is among MJ’s best posthumous song, but MJ’s best in general.</SPAN>
Yes, “keeping dry when running” is an objective criterion. People can run test to see how well Nike t-shirt and Alexander McQueen dress absorb body moisture. Nike scores in that attribute. However, is “keeping dry when running” the only criterion to access quality? How about other objective measurable attributes that people used to assess quality? And, I asked people who think Monster is among MJ’s best to give me an criterion in which Monster is rated superior. Not just an opinion, but an criterion.
</SPAN>
I think it’s fine to say Monster is MJ’s best posthumous release. It’s reasonable for me to say my Nike is the best work-out clothes I own (the pool being my Nike, my Gap, my Puma). But, it’s hard for me to say my Nike is the best piece of clothing in my closet (the pool being my Nike, my Alexander McQueen, my Burberry.) MJ’s entire catalog is like the entire closet. Posthumous release is like the disposable work-out clothes and Earth Song is like the once-a-life-time purchase like an Alexander McQueen. </SPAN>
I actually don’t have any Alexander McQueen. I just saw the exhibition.
</SPAN>
