Michael - The Great Album Debate

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Yes they did. They had no choice. It was requested by the court and they had to comply.

LOS ANGELES — Sony Pictures Entertainment has agreed to allow lawyers for Dr. Conrad Murray to view some 100 hours of raw footage of Michael Jackson's rehearsals for his This Is It concert. But they are not allowed to make public statements about what they see.
A stipulation filed with a Los Angeles court on Thursday said that the lawyers and Murray will be able to view the contents of 21 boxes containing audio visual recordings of Jackson's rehearsals, which became the basis for a concert movie after the singer's death.

Judge Pastor also stated on the public record that he had viewed the footage and there was nothing that "could have been of assistance to the defence." If there was anything that was relevant to the defence it would have been shown in court.

They didn't give them the copies that the courts wanted they only let them watch it.

 

[StellaJackson]

They didn't give them the copies that the courts wanted they only let them watch it.

Which really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[IvoDT]

1712 pages of pure joy, I dare say~

 

[MusicMan26]

Do you have any creditable proof by a forensic musicologists ?

Something that can actually prove it and not just sound alike ?

Well, Sony has yet to give us proof that there actually WERE any forensic musicologists involved. Just their word (which doesn't mean jack).

 

[Arklove]

Well, Sony has yet to give us proof that there actually WERE any forensic musicologists involved. Just their word (which doesn't mean jack).

Exactly...It's funny that the believers like to put the doubters down because the comparisons are not actual 'proof', yet what are they putting their faith in? A vaguely worded statement? Producers who weren't even there when these vocals were recorded? Ambiguous works of forensic musicologists? Where are the reports? (which, by the way, can never be considered as 100%, just like the comparisons).

 

[ivy]

Regarding that sheep photo a few pages back, really? I'd say at this point the number of Cascio doubters heavily out number those of believers, judging by message boards alone.

actually most of the believers do not care to comment on this topic. I know hundreds of them and they like IDGAF about circular debate.

Well, Sony has yet to give us proof that there actually WERE any forensic musicologists involved. Just their word (which doesn't mean jack).

Randy Jackson accused Sony with buying the musicologists. If there was no musicologist then who did Sony buy?
We have all seen 3T to deny the Estate statement about the listening sessions / what musicians said. Did they ever deny the part about the musicologists? No, gee don't you wonder why?

Critical reasoning people, it gives you many answers you are looking for.


--------------------------------------------

Unrelated note : I think the high number of guests is the search engine spiders indexing the pages as there's a post. After I posted the above message I saw me and 61 visitors on this thread. I checked it who is online and it showed me 17 people on this thread and only 5 of them being real guests and 12 being search engine spiders. I came back to edit this post and now I do see 5 guests.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

actually most of the believers do not care to comment on this topic. I know hundreds of them and they like IDGAF about circular debate.

The same goes for the doubters. There are hundreds, if not thousands of doubters, but they don't give a damn about the debate. Doubters as believers are awaiting more news concerning the subject, and each of us has their own preference of waiting: in silence, or coming to the thread and talk, even if it's in circles. Let's not forget that some people joined this thread later and ask the same questions we had already answered in the very beginning, but I doubt they'd read 1700 pages.

Randy Jackson accused Sony with buying the musicologists. If there was no musicologist then who did Sony buy?
We have all seen 3T to deny the Estate statement about the listening sessions / what musicians said. Did they ever deny the part about the musicologists? No, gee don't you wonder why?


Critical reasoning people, it gives you many answers you are looking for.

Critical reasoning goes both ways:

1. Based on what the official side says, indeed.
2. Based on what you actually see with your own eyes (nothing, no report, no names, ...) and hear with your own ears (the tracks)

Here is my critical reasoning and tell me what am I missing:

1) I listen to the song MONSTER or BREAKING NEWS

2) I am extremely annoyed by THE FACT that I don't hear MJ. At the same time the voice sounds more like JM than MJ, is it an impression or my listening abilities are telling the truth?

3) FACT: SONY seems concerned about fans' reaction after streaming BREAKING NEWS, so they apologize for presenting the wrong mix and replace it with another one. I personally don't hear any difference, the lead vocal sounds still the same to me. Impression or SONY's smoke and mirrors?

4) The Estate seems concerned too and issues the report in which they claim that they hired music/audio analysts and that they claim they are sure it is Michael Jackson's voice.

5) The Estate's statement contradicts what my ears hear, so I try to forget what I hear and I try to find an answer in their report.

6) Although the Estate's report is not backed with a single visible or listenable proof, even if I chose to be neutral and believe them, there is something in that report that is NOT neutral at all: the forensics.

7) When one analyses the way they wrote the report it clearly appears that they are not open to absolutely any suggestion or alternative possibility regarding the voice on those tracks. Why? Because of this part:

The Estate then retained one of the best-known forensic musicologists in the nation to listen to the vocals without any instrumental accompaniment (“a cappella&#8221, and to compare them with a cappella vocals from previous Michael songs. This expert performed waveform analysis, an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity, on the Cascio tracks, as well as previously released tracks with Michael’s voice, and reported that ALL of the lead vocals analyzed (which included Cascio tracks) were the voice of Michael Jackson.
​

So, as much as I want to be objectiven,the Estate isn't, simply by judging that they hired one of the best forensic musicologist in the nation. My question is how they know he's the best? Is there a list of best forensics?

Second question that comes to my mind is, why they feel the need to say that he/she's one of the best in the nation, based on what? Is this something that can be checked. Is the forensic so good that his/her name should be known to everyone?

Well anyway, only after mentioning this very BIASED fact, the Estate doesn't give much room for an alternative analysis, they have one of the best (so they claim).

Of course, in order to hammer the nail even further and seal it once for all, SONY hired the forensics too, just in case. And who did they hire:

Sony Music conducted their own investigation by hiring yet a second well-respected forensic musicologist who also compared the a cappella lead vocals from Cascio tracks against previously released vocals of Michael’s, and found that Michael’s voice was the on all sets of the raw vocals. The Cascio tracks were also played for two very prominent persons in the music industry who played crucial roles in Michael’s career. Both of these individuals believed that the lead vocals were Michael’s.​

Well, when I read that statement, all I see is no room for any other analyses, since they got one of the best, and the second best forensic. What options are we left with if we want to hire a good musicologist? The third best in the nation? WHo's that? Where's the list?

So we have two best analysts in the nation saying it is Michael. Yet the Estate seems not to be certain, so in order to be absolutely certain, they contact Jason Malachi (all of sudden a name pops up!):

Just to be absolutely certain, I also contacted Jason Malachi, a young singer who some persons had wrongfully alleged was a “soundalike” singer that was hired to sing on the Cascio tracks, and I confirmed that he had no involvement with this project whatsoever.
​

Be it a due dilligence or their own doubt (hence the contact with JM), as much as I want to be objective and forget what I hear, their report is written in such a way, labelling people with biased adjectives such as THE BEST and THE SECOND BEST, that it leaves no room for anyone to question the vocals.

This is not the court of law, however, an approach of those respected BEST and SECOND best analysts should be more reassuring if they also did the comparisons with JM's raw vocals.

Could it be leading? Not really because they'd hear which vocals the Cascio singer's ressembles the most, Michael's or Jason's. On top of that, they'd do it with, as they say, ​

waveform analysis, an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity, ​

But they didn't do it. they just used MJ's vocals to compare with the Cascio singer's, which means that if the soundalike is so good, he would be able to fool even the analyst (since the analysis itself is not considered as exact science).

8) All this, regardless of what my ears hear, leads me to be sceptical, thus to be a doubter.

In order to have a credible report, I would like to know first why those analysts are considered as the best in the nation, and second, I would like to have the explanation (I don'ty see it in the report) of those two "best" analysts why they don't believe it is not an impostor? On top of that I would like to have their opinion on the fact that some people recognize someone else and not MJ, how do they explain that?

This is my critical reasoning. I don't see a single explanation in that report. Actually, all I see is just a justification and asking people to believe their given words without backing it with anything tangible.

It goes without saying that the fact that they confirm it is MJ on those tracks, it is way more convenient than ever admitting any presence of a soundalike on those tracks. Even if it they came up to conclusion that it is a soundalike, I just wonder how'd they react and what'd they say to the public. I don't even imagine how embarrassed they'd be and how much their credibility would suffer...admitting to be fooled.

Fear of being questioned, that's how their report looks when you read it.


p.s. What is not helping The Estate's report is that they asked apparently everyone to confirm whether it is MJ's voice, yet the person that might have more knowledge than any of the asked people is completely silent: Seth Riggs. And what if they asked him and he declined to confirm it is MJ? Would they write that in their report?
If the Estate can hire the best forensic, I don't see what prevents them from kindly asking Seth Riggs to come forward and clearly say what he believes.​

 

[Korgnex]

their report is written in such a way, labelling people with biased adjectives such as THE BEST and THE SECOND BEST, that it leaves no room for anyone to question the vocals.

Nowhere does it say "the best" and "the second best". Your emotions about this issue don't even let you realize what their STATEMENTS actually say - otherwise why would you make up "the best" and "the second best"?

one of the best-known

a second well-respected​

Can you actually see what they have written???
"one of"
"a second"

an approach of those respected BEST and SECOND best analysts

why those analysts are considered as the best in the nation, and second, I would like to have the explanation (I don'ty see it in the report) of those two "best" analysts

You're upset about something that you've totally fabricated yourself, Bumper...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Nowhere does it say "the best" and "the second best". Your emotions about this issue don't even let you realize what their STATEMENTS actually say - otherwise why would you make up "the best" and "the second best"?



Can you actually see what they have written???
"one of"
"a second"



You're upset about something that you've totally fabricated yourself, Bumper...

Read carefully what I wrote:

Well, when I read that statement, all I see is no room for any other analyses, since they got one of the best, and the second best forensic.

I clearly quoted them word for word: ONE OF THE BEST!

But the very fact that they themselves used the word "second best" for SONY, implicitely means that they had the better one, than the second best, which means "the best", or else their wording "the second best" wouldn't be justified at all.

(if SONY hired the second best, who hired the best?)

 

[Korgnex]

Read carefully what I wrote:


I clearly quoted them word for word: ONE OF THE BEST!

But the very fact that they themselves used the word "second best" for SONY, implicitely means that they had the better one, than the second best, which means "the best", or else their wording "the second best" wouldn't be justified at all.

(if SONY hired the second best, who hired the best?)

It CLEARLY says "a second well-respected". "A second" means ANOTHER, NOT "the second-best".

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

It says "a second well-respected". "A second" means ANOTHER, NOT "the second-best".

So you have A FIRST, A SECOND, A THIRD? According to your logic there are several BEST, several second best, several third best, etc... Come on Korgnex, again you are playing with words. Read between the lines.

p.s. Ok, even if let's say they hired another well respected forensic, I give you that. They did say they had one of the best-known forensic. Do you know who it is?

And regardless of the fact whether they're best or second best, or not best, whichever angle you approach, my main concern is that nothing in their report answers any questions that I raised.

p.p.s. By saying one of the best known, don't they imply actually one of the best (or else why would he be the best-known? not for his inabilities I hope) You see what I mean?

 

[Korgnex]

So you have A FIRST, A SECOND, A THIRD? According to your logic there are several BEST, several second best, several third best, etc... Come on Korgnex, again you are playing with words. Read between the lines.

Pardon? You're intentionally adding allegations to official statements that are written in PLAIN LANGUAGE.

Several best, several second best, ...??????
That's not my logic!!!

The fact that you've replaced "a second well-respected" with "the second-best" makes it clear that your emotions don't allow you to see that what you claim is ridiculous.
You're not reading between the lines, you're making up things - INTENTIONALLY!

one of the best-known

a second well-respected
​

Not really hard to understand. Just two statements that say that acknowledged experts in this field were hired.
And you're talking about a ranking instead...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Pardon? You're intentionally adding allegations to official statements that are written CLEARLY.

Several best, several second best, ...??????
That's not my logic!!!

The fact that you've replaced "a second well-respected" with "the second-best" makes it clear that your emotions don't allow you to see that what you claim is ridiculous.
You're not reading between the lines, you're making up things - INTENTIONALLY!

Read my p.s. and my p.p.s.

Don't you ever see an implicit message when something is written?

So what do we actually have:

One of the best-known and a second well respected.

Ok, my question is, what is he best-known for? Abilities or inabilities? This second well respected, is also one of the best, because he's respected. What is he respected for, his abilities or inabilities?

So in both situations we have in total two people who are best-known/respected in their field, yet we don't know who they are and it comes down to the same conclusion, what room is there left for a third analysis?

If I hire a third well respected and that third well respected contradicts the two best known/respected hired by SONY and the Estate, how much credible would my forensic be after reading the Estate's report?

I hope this makes it cleaerer what I was implying.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Not really hard to understand. Just two statements that say that acknowledged experts in this field were hired.
And you're talking about a ranking instead...

From the moment they said "one of the BEST-KNOWN", they started ranking.

They could simply say a well known, or a respectable, or a well respected, etc. No, they had ONE OF THE BEST-KNOWN. Nuance, nuance...

 

[Korgnex]

I only wanted to correct your above-mentioned allegations. I have zero interest in circular speculation. Charles Thompson claims to have seen what you are hoping for.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I only wanted to correct your above-mentioned allegations. I have zero interest in circular speculation. Charles Thompson claims to have seen what you are hoping for.

You were right to point out my lack of attention when wording "the second best" instead of "a second best". As I said, I give you that.

However, I also said, that the way they formulated it, it implicitely comes down to the same conclusion:

a third forensic (even if well respected) cannot compete with "one of the best-known" and "a second well respected" forensics. These latter are as a matter of fact according to the report best-known for what they do and well respected for what they do.

Introducing a third well respected who could contradict the two hired by SONY and Estate would either create much confusion or remove credit from a third forensic if he contradicted them.

That was my whole point.

Not to mention Seth Riggs's silence who does not contribute positively to the Estate's report which apparently mentions only the people who confirm it is MJ and is silent about people who either didn't express their opinion or might have denied their forensics' claims.

To me the report is not objective, it is selective with its arguments.

 

[Chamife]

There should be a way to get the names of both experts (formal letter to Sony, The Estate?) so we can contact them (formal letter again) and ask if it is possible they care to explain to us (fans and laymen) how in this case the analysis was conducted exactly, as many fans have questions about it. Most experts are proud of their work, so I see no reason why they wouldn't adress that question.

 

[OnirMJ]

I want to hear Michael, i listen to a cascio track everyday.

Breaking News, All I Need, Keep your Head up, All Right, and Fall in Love do it in for me

Do you have All Right & Fall in Love in full? Or just snippets?

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

Who is Seth riggs, and what did Charles Thompson Claim?

Do you have All Right & Fall in Love in full? Or just snippets?

I have the snippets. As far as i know the place i got them online still has them out to download. But im not sharing that information becuase Nasty is lurking

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

So here is what they say in the report:

This expert performed waveform analysis, (which is) an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity,

They do say how they did it. Like this:

​

forensic musicologists [...] to listen to the vocals without any instrumental accompaniment (“a cappella&#8221, and to compare them with a cappella vocals from previous Michael songs.​

Number one, they never compared with Jason Malachi's acappelas, so we will never know their opinion on that.

Number two, here are some examples of waveforms:

​

etc.

Now, I am not a musicology/audio waveform expert. All I am asking as a fan is a simple explanation of how on Earth you can compare the waveform of the Cascio acappella with an acappella of a previous MJ song and draw conclusion that it is the same voice?

If identical sentences with identical melodies were compared, I could understand, but how do they compare two different sentences, sung melodies and be confident that it's MJ's voice only by looking at the waveform?

Furthermore, if there is a soundalike, how would they detect him if they don't compare to the suspected one?

If the analysis is as objective as the report claims, then they wouldn't be misled by comparing the voice of the Cascio singer to Jason Malachi's. The objective results would automatically lead to "it's not Jason."

Indeed, for example if they compared the Cascio singer's voice with Barry White's, would they be misled? If the method is as reliable as they claim, I don't think they could be misled by comparing to any other singer (soundalike or not).

I'll just add that many believers find it ridiculous to compare those tracks to Jason's voice, yet they don't seem to see that the forensics did exactly the same thing: comparisons. And that's what is all about. I wish they could explain why according to the waveform they believe it is MJ's voice without leaving the possibility of it being a soundalike who'd be able to fool them.

Finally, I wonder if the acappellas they compared contained MJ's copy-pasted words within sentences or if they analysed the vocals before the songs without any inserted copy-pasted vocals and ad-libs.

When one uses critical thinking, the report opens the door to more questions than it answers.

In a nutshell, all the report says is that according to the forensic it is MJ's voice, but he does not say that it is not JM's voice. Indeed how could he know if he didn't compare it with JM's acappellas?

p.s. Instead of contacting JM, it would hav ebeen more useul to compare the waveforms with JM's acappellas to, you know, as they claim "in order to be absolutely certain".

 

[Arklove]

The comparisons just add to the doubt, they don't make the doubt a be all to end all...but there are a lot of believers who put their faith in tests the statement claims were performed..It's all the same thing! Could the tests the forensics performed be acceptable for court? If so, is it because they were performed by professionals? And our comparisons not acceptable because they were done by amateurs and considered 'leading'? If all of this is so, then why are we always told to go to court with this? lol...Especially since all of these tests can never be 100%...Then all either side has are their ears...And I agree about using JM's acapellas...you know, since they thought it important enough to contact him in the first place...obviously he'd have denied it! So what was the purpose exactly?

 

[Chamife]

In a nutshell, all the report says is that according to the forensic it is MJ's voice, but he does not say that it is not JM's voice. Indeed how could he know if he didn't compare it with JM's acappellas?

Yes, I would like to know how he (she?) came to that conclusion (it's Michael's voice) and for him to answer all of your questions above.

p.s. Instead of contacting JM, it would hav ebeen more useul to compare the waveforms with JM's acappellas to, you know, as they claim "in order to be absolutely certain".

True. But I'm not sure they could legally pull that off that easily. Just because some fans say it could be Jason Malachi perform waveform analysis on his own songs and the Cascio songs and make it public? Maybe they would need to have Jason's approval first for something like that? Privacy etc?..dunno.
And maybe The Estate/Sony also believed the analysis in the way it was conducted would single out every possibility that it was someone else. They were laymen too in that field.

 

[Chamife]

Listening to:

http://michaeljackson.radiodelsuronline.com/.

And no Cascio songs this far...:bow:

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

So here is what they say in the report:

This expert performed waveform analysis, (which is) an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity,

They do say how they did it. Like this:

​

forensic musicologists [...] to listen to the vocals without any instrumental accompaniment (“a cappella&#8221, and to compare them with a cappella vocals from previous Michael songs.​

Number one, they never compared with Jason Malachi's acappelas, so we will never know their opinion on that.

Number two, here are some examples of waveforms:

​

etc.

Now, I am not a musicology/audio waveform expert. All I am asking as a fan is a simple explanation of how on Earth you can compare the waveform of the Cascio acappella with an acappella of a previous MJ song and draw conclusion that it is the same voice?

If identical sentences with identical melodies were compared, I could understand, but how do they compare two different sentences, sung melodies and be confident that it's MJ's voice only by looking at the waveform?

Furthermore, if there is a soundalike, how would they detect him if they don't compare to the suspected one?

If the analysis is as objective as the report claims, then they wouldn't be misled by comparing the voice of the Cascio singer to Jason Malachi's. The objective results would automatically lead to "it's not Jason."

Indeed, for example if they compared the Cascio singer's voice with Barry White's, would they be misled? If the method is as reliable as they claim, I don't think they could be misled by comparing to any other singer (soundalike or not).

I'll just add that many believers find it ridiculous to compare those tracks to Jason's voice, yet they don't seem to see that the forensics did exactly the same thing: comparisons. And that's what is all about. I wish they could explain why according to the waveform they believe it is MJ's voice without leaving the possibility of it being a soundalike who'd be able to fool them.

Finally, I wonder if the acappellas they compared contained MJ's copy-pasted words within sentences or if they analysed the vocals before the songs without any inserted copy-pasted vocals and ad-libs.

When one uses critical thinking, the report opens the door to more questions than it answers.

In a nutshell, all the report says is that according to the forensic it is MJ's voice, but he does not say that it is not JM's voice. Indeed how could he know if he didn't compare it with JM's acappellas?

p.s. Instead of contacting JM, it would hav ebeen more useul to compare the waveforms with JM's acappellas to, you know, as they claim "in order to be absolutely certain".

Why would they do the wave test to Jason Malachi when they were trying to prove it's Michael Jackson's lead vocals if it matched then what would the Jason Malachi one prove ?

 

[Korgnex]

Their statements don't go into any scientific details, they are statements, not the experts' assessments. You shouldn't forget that the phrasing "waveform analysis" used by the MJ Estate is a general term to roughly describe a complex analysis. Nothing more, nothing less...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Why would they do the wave test to Jason Malachi when they were trying to prove it's Michael Jackson's lead vocals if it matched then what would the Jason Malachi one prove ?

Did you read what I wrote?

What if JM's also matched the waveform? And by the way, my question was what exactly matches with what? They compared the waveforms of sentences sung in the Cascio songs with sentences from previous MJ's acappellas. So how tehy draw conclusion based on a coppariosn of different things only by reading the waveforms? How they know a soundalike wouldn't match the same criteria?

 

[Arklove]

True. But I'm not sure they could legally pull that off that easily. Just because some fans say it could be Jason Malachi perform waveform analysis on his own songs and the Cascio songs and make it public? Maybe they would need to have Jason's approval first for something like that? Privacy etc?..dunno.
And maybe The Estate/Sony also believed the analysis in the way it was conducted would single out every possibility that it was someone else. They were laymen too in that field.

I understand about the confidentiality issue...But SOMETHING must have made them decide to contact JM...If he's a well-known impersonator that was mistaken for Michael in the past...Maybe they asked him if it was him, and maybe they actually did ask if they could perform analysis of his acappellas to the Cascio songs...Maybe JM declined this? Then you'd have to wonder why he would, does he have something to hide? Maybe they just decided to take his word for it when he denied his involvement...But what is the use of asking JM in the first place without doing anything tangible? It doesn't help to just 'ask' him...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Their statements don't go into any scientific details, they are statements, not the experts' assessments. You shouldn't forget that the phrasing "waveform analysis" used by the MJ Estate is a general term to roughly describe a complex analysis. Nothing more, nothing less...

Hence my questions. Their statement is filled with carefully selected arguments, which makes it incomplete and quite biased.

They are basically requiring from us to trust their word. As far as I am concerned, since my ears don't hear MJ's voice, their report is in contradiction with what they say. As a matter of fact, they addressed the report to the public who doubt the vocals, yet they don't provide anything really convincing except their words.

Why is it more difficult for them to ask Seth Riggs about the vocals than contacting Jason Malachi to "be absolutely certain"?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Here are my genuine questions:

-Why the Estate doesn't post the report made by the forensic?

-Why SONY doesn't post the report made by their forensic?

-Why not, in order to clear all the doubts, they don't perform waveform analysis with the one the doubters suspect?

-Why don't they explain how they drew conclusions and what is the error margin?

-Would that error margin be smaller with the comparison of the vocals of soundalike we suspect?

-Why they don't mention Seth Riggs who had THE key position when it comes to MJ's voice live, in the studio, on the phone, in the room, etc?

-Why Jason Malachi himself does not come up forward on youtube to deny the things, the same way he did when singing acappella of his "Don't Walk Away"?

-When asked about the authenticity of the vocals, Teddy Riley didn't give any argument except "nobody can scream like that". So the doubters were listening to the screams and found out that they are copy-pastes. Now, what about the rest of the vocals other than the screams?

-As there are 12 songs and if they intend to release them all, what was the reason that pushed them to dilute them and scatter them around on different albums and not release them all in one album since it had been recorded in the same studio and the same year? Wouldn't the songs flow better on one album?

-How one explains that after recording of 12 songs, there is no single written note, worktape, picture, video, outtake, missed take, ...

Even if the vocals were genuine, I find that there are too many questions that are not answered.

 

[IvoDT]

-As there are 12 songs and if they intend to release them all, what was the reason that pushed them to dilute them and scatter them around on different albums and not release them all in one album since it had been recorded in the same studio and the same year? Wouldn't the songs flow better on one album?

I think the reason for this was to make the album more diverse.
For example, not all the cascio songs were "good" enough to be put on one album, imo. Take Fall In Love for example. Much Too Soon/Best Of Joy sounds much better (from what we know) right?

So it's not really strange that they didn't put them all on the album.

I still do hope they release Burn Tonight somehow. Such a good song.