Eheheh this was so funny.
*
And she laughed in a tone of superiority looking down at us 'poor ignorant' people in this thread...
Not really, it's not funny. Sad. Really sad. Even sadder when you laugh at comments and mockingly call out people "super fans".
I actually teach critical thinking and reasoning at college level. We give students scenarios with no right or wrong answers and ask them to come to conclusions. While doing that they need to justify their opinions in a way that it can stand to picking it to pieces. We then as their professors read their assignments and try to find holes in their reasoning.
Teachers constantly question themselves, update their methods and look for innovative pedagogy.
After reading all your comments in this thread of 1500 pages, as a teacher you never seem to question your arguments, even when there are strong arguments against yours, you've already demonstrated a little bit earlier in the posts that you'd rather stick to your opinion and be wrong, than acknowledge to be wrong.
For example I jokingly pointed out when you said that you weren't going to write personal opinions, and in the same post, few lines under, you said "I personally can't comprehend..." What was your reaction when I pointed it out? You said, "oh it wasn't personal opinion." This alone illustrate how you never seem to question your posts on the one hand, and on the other you write things like:
"I come here to correct misconceptions" (thanks for worrying about our lack of education)
"Hello super fans" (thanks for mocking people about their fandom. Yes there are superfans inhere who know the slightest Michael's note, the slightes breath on each song, something none of the forensic could do without thoroughly searching through softwares).
Teaching is a gift, and not everyone has that gift. Unfortunately many college professors don't have that gift, simply because they're not specialized in teaching.
If this was a homework :
1. The point that Quincy is not good at identifying voices would be a solid point as he wasn't successful in identifying Siedah - who is not a soundalike and is a female. Any arguments that show his inability would be strong.
2. On the other hand Quincy Jones = Bruce Swedien would be rejected because
-- there's no information about Bruce Swedien's ability or inability
-- although both Quincy and Bruce worked with Michael, they didn't do the same tasks. One of them was a producer , the other one was a sound engineer. For example Bruce made tens of mixes to Billie Jean hence his experience with Michael's vocals were more in depth and more hands on.
What a contradiction! And once he's done his job who was listening to million times to MJ's voice and all the remixes that there are, including fan made ones? Where's that factor? Completely absent from your homework instruction. By the way, you think what? Bruce spent his life in remixing Michael's songs? Bruce had many other artists, he also needs to pay his bills, nobody works for charity.
-- time they are exposed to Michael's voice / recording is also different. Bruce has worked with Michael for decades. Quincy has worked with Michael for 10 years and then out of studio for 20 years. So Bruce had longer and more recent exposure to Michael's voice.
Bruce had not only Michael's voice contrary to the hard core fans, Bruce had a job you know, and it wasn't all about Michael! Those who have the longest exposure to Michael's voice are none others than his fans!
On top of that, you completely ignore what Bruce said. He said that he never ever saw Michael unprepared. He never saw Michael without warming up his vocals. He did see Michael constantly working on his lyrics. Always! Where is that factor in your homework instruction?
The "Quincy = Bruce" is overgeneralizion or steorotyping. It's no different than "all woman are bad drivers" or "all men are better with working with their hand".
The comparisons are absolutely empty of any sense. Meaningless.
Quincy worked with Michael. Bruce worked with Michael. Quincy worked with other artists. Bruce worked with other artists. Quincy couldn't tell the difference between the voices. Bruce witnessed Michael never stopping working on lyrics, preparing hours before recording, constantly working on lyrics, warming up his voice and would do a song in maximum 4 takes. All these arguments heavily contradict the Cascio songs and the Cascio theory. There is no exaggeration. Theses are facts.
Dominic apparently reported that it was serious work and that all the vocals were recorded by Michael Jackson.
When you compare those two (Bruce's claims and Cascio's claims, it has nothing to do with over generalizing anything. So keep your "all women are bad drivers" example maybe to compare something else, it doesn't fit here at all.
Although you focus on "musician", you fail to acknowledge the differences (that I listed above). This would have failed in critical thinking and supporting an argument.
They would fail in your personal "critical" thinking because you do not include all the facts. All you include are half things. The halves that suit your thinking.
3. "fans better than musicians" is also an overgeneralization which is not backed up with general fans actions and admissions. This thread shows that there were fans that was fooled by jason in 2007, that cannot identify Jason today (in pentum's experiment), have different evaluations of Jason's songs (good - bad), confused by Jean Walker and other sound alikes, and also changed their minds in regards to Cascio songs. On point in time they were hearing Michael / Jason , the next they started to hear the other. So there's nothing to suggest that generally fans are any better in voice identification.
Fans are not necessarily musicians, I never said so. And again. You didn't read what I said. How many times were fans fooled by Michael Jackson himself?
If those vocals are MJ, then it would be the first time ever. So no example can defend your argument actually, because this would be the first time. But before that you need to prove that those vocals are Michael's.
And if ever those vocals are proven to be Michael's, it would be a disgrace to his legacy to have twisted and overproduce them to such an extent that they have fooled the fans. Abomination!
4. So that would leave you with "some" fans that have something different , something superior than the general fans - which I called as "super fans".
I am sorry, but that is your own mocking interpretation. I never called anyone being a superior fan compared to others. You said that.
As far as I am concerned, when I said that some fans can be fooled and others not, it is not a question of superiority, but a question of being different and being sensitive to different things. One person is not another, we are not clones for God's sake.
Although these fans could be highly confident, there's nothing objectively shows their ability. This would have gotten a partial credit from me as the research has shown that some people are better than others in voice identification, similar to Bruce might be better than Quincy, some fans might be better than others. However my comments would include the question "how do you know this is not the "confidence" rather than true identification?". If you remember research has shown people can be overly confident in their identification - to the point to persuade a jury of 12- but there was no correlation between confidence and true identification. So this would get partial credit with the notification to add there's no way of knowing if we are dealing with "confident but wrong" or "truly better ability" people.
This is not exact science we are talking about. you can observe hours, days, years, and the results will never be exact.
Other than that, you don't need someone to tell you what you hear. A bird is a bird, Michael Jackson is Michael Jackson. Is it so complicate to understand that?
And if you really want to use logic, compare these two things:
1) What are the chances that a huge number of fans gets fooled by a soundalike?
2) What are the chances that a huge number of fans gets fooled by michael Jackson himself.
Food for thought.
so this is my professional expert opinion of this argument. Be happy that you aren't in my class.
Do you always talk to your colleagues like that "be happy that you aren't in my class?" (meaning what exactly? that your opinion is superior to mine?)
Who do you think I am? A student of yours? I've been long graduated you know, and I've been teaching on all levels including post-university and PhDs.
