Michael - The Great Album Debate

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Hubris.

Lol. Whatever. Tick tock.

bi-bip!

 

[ivy]

where did I say I "don't want" more info? To the contrary I said multiple times over multiple months , I would have wanted more transparency. I also wrote that I asked for the reports. I'm just saying that "it won't make a difference".

and I'll ask this why do you call that expert as "well respected"? Did you actually checked his references? http://edprimeau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Ed-Primeau-CV-2012.pdf He only has 3 voice identification cases at local courts and none of them is singing. Actually his qualifications does not list musicologist at all. But if you believe he's well respected why not contact him for an analysis request?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

where did I say I "don't want" more info? To the contrary I said multiple times over multiple months , I would have wanted more transparency. I also wrote that I asked for the reports. I'm just saying that "it won't make a difference".

It would make a big difference in having the maximum info and at least trying to understand the conclusion.

and I'll ask this why do you call that expert as "well respected"?

According to the article: Ed Primeau is president of Primeau Productions, Inc. based out of Rochester Hills, Michigan, as well as a well-respected audio and video forensic expert.

Did you actually checked his references? http://edprimeau.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Ed-Primeau-CV-2012.pdf He only has 3 voice identification cases at local courts and none of them is singing. Actually his qualifications does not list musicologist at all. But if you believe he's well respected why not contact him for an analysis request?

From the article:

Ed has worked with renowned recording artists like Anita Baker, Bob Seger and Barry Manilow. In the early 1980s, Mr. Primeau developed a music industry marketing niche, hosting album release parties for major label record companies.

In addition, Ed is also a respected audio visual forensics expert engaged in many law cases throughout the United States and Canada.


Now a question to you: did you actually check MJ's forensic references? Oh wait a minute, you can't, he/she's not named (yet believed as credible)
Why MJ's forensic is called "well respected"? Oh yes, the Estate says so.

Is that what you imply how something should be checked?

 

[ivy]

bumper - you fail to understand what I'm saying.

you take the articles "well respected expert" identification on face value without even spending the time to check to see it but then you have problems with other people taking "one of the best" (or whatever) statement of Estate on face value. Where's the logic in that? you realize that you did the same thing that you accuse of believers doing, you read an article and kept referring to this person as "well respected" just because the article said so.

For a person that had argued that singing voice identification and voice analysis being different for a long long time, you seem to forget what you have written all this time.

What you fail to realize is that I'm not trying to discuss anything with you (it's not about this person's credentials, or the analysis, or the results etc) , I'm trying to show the inconsistency of your actions.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

bumper - you fail to understand what I'm saying.

you take the articles "well respected expert" identification on face value without even spending the time to check to see it but then you have problems with other people taking "one of the best" (or whatever) statement of Estate on face value. Where's the logic in that?

For a person that had argued that singing voice identification and voice analysis being different for a long long time, you seem to forget what you have written all this time.

What you fail to realize is that I'm not trying to discuss anything with you, I'm trying to show the inconsistency of your actions.

You fail to understand that I was quoting the article when saying "well respected". It is not I who labeled him as "well respected".

That was my whole point. You have the Estate calling nameless forensics "well respected" and you seem to have a problem with me using the terms from the article of a forensic whose résumé and credentials can be checked by anyone.

Now to answer your previous question why not hiring an expert, my answer is simple: I don't have that money. For example:

Tom Owen charges a minimum of $4,500 to authenticate an hour's worth of digital or analog recording, and $2,500 to testify in court.
​

source: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/audio_forensics?currentPage=all

 

[azsummergirl]

Unfortunately I think it will be very difficult to get any kind of transparency or honesty when this amount of money is involved.

 

[ivy]

then you are asking kinda meaningless questions

"Why Elvis's Estate refuses to accept the track as genuine despite the shown thorough analysis of the well respected audio forensic?"

Why would Elvis Estate has to accept these tracks as genuine if he's not as respected or as high as the article claims? Then the rest of the questions becomes moot.

and still not reading it Bumper. I never said "hire" , I said "contact".

look to the guy's webpage. He has a blog and even has given opinion about Trayvon Martin. you wouldn't lose anything by sending him an email with links to the 3 songs and mention him that there's a controversy about Michael's vocals and ask for his opinion. you won't lose anything by doing it. (please do not mention soundalikes if / until he gives a first opinion / analysis).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

then you are asking kinda meaningless questions

"Why Elvis's Estate refuses to accept the track as genuine despite the shown thorough analysis of the well respected audio forensic?"

Why would Elvis Estate has to accept these tracks as genuine if he's not as respected or as high as the article claims? Then the rest of the questions becomes moot.

and still not reading it Bumper. I never said "hire" , I said "contact".

look to the guy's webpage. He has a blog and even has given opinion about Trayvon Martin. you wouldn't lose anything by sending him an email with links to the 3 songs and mention him that there's a controversy about Michael's vocals and ask for his opinion. you won't lose anything by doing it. (please do not mention soundalikes if / until he gives a first opinion / analysis).

My question is not meaningless because the same method was used, yet one Estate accepted, the other Estate didn't accept it.

Hypothetically speaking, what if MJ's Estate hired the same expert as the one that is in the article? What excuse would be used not to accept his analysis of the Elvis's song by the Estate?

 

[ivy]

That's a question for Lisa Marie. If you know what Elvis Estate lawyer said , they said producers that worked with Elvis's music didn't agree , there have been a lot of similar previous attempts for money (these people too tried to sell the song) and how the song was found (I believe in a box in an attic after decades later) was questionable. As you can see there are multiple factors involved. It's not based on just an expert report. Estate report - although it didn't go into specifics- gave a laundry list of what they have done.

so you aren't talking about comparable situations. You are talking about comparing apples to oranges.

Also interesting thing to think about : Sony is also the label for Elvis. Elvis hasn't had a new release for decades , it's all compilations and remixes. So a previously unreleased song could be a gold mine for them. If they are all for money and can put fakes so easily on MJ albums then why not do the same for Elvis?

And then you are left with due diligence and confidence. So perhaps MJ Estate / Sony did everything they did to test the authenticity and they are confident in their results and therefore released the songs but Elvis Estate / Sony even though they considered the "well respected expert" opinion and consulted their own experts weren't confident in the results and therefore denounced the song. It's simple really.

 

[Korgnex]

Well the Elvis example is other way around and it doesn't include a court assigned executors that can lose their position due to their actions. They would of course show due diligence before a release , Elvis estate has no need for due diligence because they are denying the song.

Fear of leading is only relevant in a lawsuit, that person is not trying to come up with an analysis that would stand up in court, his only reasoning is trying to convince Elvis Estate.

-no anonymity & no fear of harassment - again not released song and again there's no issue of lawsuit here. it's a song that's put online, anyone can listen to it and can believe it or not. there's no reason for harassment.

-no hesitation to explain what was compared
-no hesitation to explain how it was analysed
-no hesitation to film the whole procedure
-no hesitation for forensic interview

of course not because they are trying to convince the Elvis Estate the songs are legit.The only way to make their point is to create a buzz. And if you followed it, they only went public after Elvis Estate didn't really respond to their initial requests to talk.

-no release of the songs by the Estate because of the division and the doubt

sorry but here you are making things up. Estate didn't & won't release the song simply because they don't accept the song as legit. The release has got nothing to do with the division or doubt. It's not like they got the song but then not decided to release it. They rejected the song.

-no fear from the Estate to tell the forensic that the song sounds nothing like Elvis

and MJ Estate had no fear to tell doubters that they were confident in their results

and for the record you are seriously mixing up leading, due diligence concepts with unrelated stuff

I second that. Brilliant post!

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Actually it is a failure, controversy or not. And there's plenty of things they could have done to make it... uh, less of a failure, to say the least.

A better title, better track list, more songs, no fake tracks, deluxe editions with demos, better single choices, better videos for them... feel free to stop me whenever you want, cause I can keep going .



And again, who's fault is it? I was simply pointing out how much they've screwed up and how the album is a total failure (by Michael's standards of course). The controversy is their fault and so is the lack of promotion (and by 'they' I mean both Sony and the Estate).

I think I have more than enough reasons to call them a bunch of greedy corporate bastards, who could care less about Michael's legacy or what his fans want. I'm sick and tired of this whole "Oh, we do care, but shut up and let us do whatever we want with your dead idol's music" attitude.



Not relevant, hence the 'by Michael's standards' comment from my previous post.

To the Michael Jackson estate, Sony, and many fans the songs are not fake.

Sony and the estate did claim they had them analyzed so why not file a lawsuit and request to see the musicologists reports as evidence ?
The estate did release a public statement saying that they were analyzed by 2 experts in their field.

 

[teli-mj]

To the Michael Jackson estate, Sony, and many fans the songs are not fake.

Sony and the estate did claim they had them analyzed so why not file a lawsuit and request to see the musicologists reports as evidence ?
The estate did release a public statement saying that they were analyzed by 2 experts in their field.

Did they name those experts?

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Did they name those experts?

No but with a court order I'm sure they will name them.

 

[teli-mj]

No but with a court order I'm sure they will name them.

So, just plain naming them and not having to involve court and things like that was not an option in the first place? It's not so hard to say that the experts who did the analysis and confirmed that it was MJ singing on the songs was this guy and this guy (or girl). So why not do it? Why leave everything so vague?

 

[T.N.A.]

To the Michael Jackson estate, Sony, and many fans the songs are not fake.

Sony and the estate did claim they had them analyzed so why not file a lawsuit and request to see the musicologists reports as evidence ?
The estate did release a public statement saying that they were analyzed by 2 experts in their field.

Is that seriously all you got from my post? Did you even read it properly or stopped when the word 'fake' was brought up?

 

[OnirMJ]

Very interesting find Bumper!

I found this video about the Elvis song in which Primeau is interviewed and in which the analysis is further explained.

We need this guy to do the analysis for Michael. What Estate did is embarrassing.

 

[Pentum]

We can try to contact him!

 

[ivy]

We can try to contact him!

oh wait, yep I said the same thing.

 

[StellaJackson]

http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?3272

http://www.forensicmusicologist.com/

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/guy-protheroe/32/30b/5b6

And here is an interesting article I found when looking for these guys.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/11/whats_a_forensic_musicologist.html

Problem is that everything that the article states the musicologists look for as a match is exactly what we can clearly hear doesn't match.

And here is what Corey Rooney said about the specialists:

"I have read the statement from the MJ estate and I have to say that it's just more bullshit!!! I was in that room, and the majority of the people mentioned did NOT agree that It was MJ!!! Some felt it sounded like him but all agree that there was nothing there that was consistent with any MJ habits like finger snaps, headphone bleeding, foot stomping or just simple things like his voice asking for another take. Both dr. Freeze and Teddy Riley sat with Taryll Jackson and myself and stated that they felt what we felt. As for the specialists that were brought in, I don't think anyone from the actual Jackson family got any direct confirmation that made them feel any different then what they have felt all along."

 

[Pentum]

oh wait, yep I said the same thing.

Sorry, but I don't read all the posts here, especially when they are so looong and booring no offense

 

[Chamife]

We need this guy to do the analysis for Michael. What Estate did is embarrassing.

We can try to contact him!

We don't know what analysis The Estate/Sony did. We only have their word they hired someone. I want to see the analysis from Estate/Sony first and see with my own eyes how they came to that conclusion (hope that Q&A with John Branca happens, good opportunity to ask for it then).

And yes, you can always show that analysis to an independent third (top!) musicologist, add the info we have and try to ask his opinion.

 

[kreen]

And here we go with the lawsuit nonsense again. People like me do not have the time and money to file a lawsuit. It doesn't work like that in this country (UK). And I never said it was something anybody can see. Just that it is obvious to those who have been listening to both MJ and JM for as long as I have. To me personally it is obvious and until someone can prove (please do) that it is Michael then that's just the way it is. You have nothing to back your own argument up so you resort to the "file a lawsuit" tactic or the preferred method of your ilk which is anti-Jackson propaganda. Hurts doesn't it?

"The file a lawsuit tactic" : yeah, why would ANYONE think of filing a lawsuit when obvious, illegal fraud has been committed? You say you don't have the money? Then pool your resources with the millions of other MJ fans who know, like you, that the songs are fake. You say you don't have the time? Gimme a break : you've spent about a thousand man-hour on this Web site alone writing about the controversy.

As for you supporting the Immortal show, knock yourself out, but I think you got all excited about this project before you knew the Cascios would profit from it, and when you did find out, you just couldn't bring yourself to ruin another MJ project for yourself after missing out on the « Michael » album.

As for the length of time one has been listening to MJ’s music, which is apparently a factor in whether one can have an opinion on the sound of MJ’s voice, I’m 33, and have been listening to MJ since the mid-eighties. I might actually be among the oldest fans on this forum!

 

[ivy]

Sorry, but I don't read all the posts here, especially when they are so looong and booring no offense

my post was short, I had said if you think this person is "well respected" then contact him

Bumper replied that he doesn't have the money to hire him

I replied saying I said contact him and not hire him.

 

[Pentum]

^ If you have been listening to MJ for that long, you should easily be able to tell that the singer is not MJ in these Cascio songs. You shouldn't accept excuses either.

 

[kreen]

I have a few questions for the believers:

1) Why Elvis's Estate refuses to accept the track as genuine despite the shown thorough analysis of the well respected audio forensic?

2) As opposed to question number one, why MJ's Estate accepts the tracks as genuine after (reportedly but still not seen) analysis of (reportedly) well respected audio forensic?

3) How come believers are comfortable with believing the Estate's report without seeing a single proof or forensic's report and identity and at the same time seeing that in Elvis's case the Estate disagreed with the well respected forensic report leading to the FACT that the forensic report doesn't seem to be as scientific and as objective as claimed by the MJ's Estate in their report:

"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."
​

What did the Elvis's well respected forensic then do? A subjective non-scientific test? Am I the only one to see that Elvis's forensic used the same methods as MJ's forensics, yet not accepted as objective scientific test to determine audio authenticity?

​

When it comes to authenticating something in any field, there’s internal analysis, and external analysis. Internal analysis, in the case of those songs, is comparison of the vocals. External analysis is whether the circumstances surrounding the songs are plausible. For instance, if MJ hadn’t really spent a few months with the Cascios in 2007, if the Cascios weren’t really musicians, or if they didn’t have a home studio, etc., then they would fail the external analysis test.

So maybe that Elvis song fails the external analysis test. Also, maybe that audio forensic guy isn’t as good as he says, or his results aren’t as trustworthy as he thinks. Because obviously, if the Elvis Estate really had access to an all-new Elvis recording, they would jump on the occasion, because those are incredibly rare, and would be of enormous value.

Another possibility is that the new Elvis song is not in their possession, so if they were to admit it is legit, they would either have to pay through the nose to get it, or some other company would profit.

 

[StellaJackson]

"The file a lawsuit tactic" : yeah, why would ANYONE think of filing a lawsuit when obvious, illegal fraud has been committed? You say you don't have the money? Then pool your resources with the millions of other MJ fans who know, like you, that the songs are fake. You say you don't have the time? Gimme a break : you've spent about a thousand man-hour on this Web site alone writing about the controversy.

As for you supporting the Immortal show, knock yourself out, but I think you got all excited about this project before you knew the Cascios would profit from it, and when you did find out, you just couldn't bring yourself to ruin another MJ project for yourself after missing out on the « Michael » album.

As for the length of time one has been listening to MJ’s music, which is apparently a factor in whether one can have an opinion on the sound of MJ’s voice, I’m 33, and have been listening to MJ since the mid-eighties. I might actually be among the oldest fans on this forum!

And once again you take to judging me instead of answering any of the serious questions about the songs. You need to get in the real world and learn a little about how the law works in the United Kingdom. As we have stated time and again we don't have unequivocal proof that the songs are fake. Just because it may be obvious to me and many other fans doesn't prove it. You clearly have no idea about the time and money involved in filing a lawsuit. And against whom? For what? "File a lawsuit" is the stock answer for people like you that can't answer the difficult questions which have been asked time and again. You know we can't practically do that and I think secretly you get a kick out of telling us to do it? Trolling much? You then accuse me of being hypocritcal by saying I don't have the time to file a lawsuit yet I spend thousands of man hours on here. Well clearly that is an exaggeration and you need to be careful here. You don't me or know the reasons why I do what I do. As for Cirque, it is an attempted guilt trip on your part because you have nothing to add to the debate. I was one of the people who was furious when Monster vocals were included in the show, which we found out from the fan club leaders preview and thankfully we got them removed, as well as having the "Monster" graphic removed from the programme. I am not going to let these songs spoil what is otherwise a good thing. The Michael album wasn't ruined for me. I love the other 7 songs because they are Michael. I simply believe that the Cascio tracks are sung by JM.

Now I would appreciate it if you would stop making this debate about me and either discuss some of the issues with the songs...still waiting for your vibrato explanation with sources and examples...or well, you know...

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

So, just plain naming them and not having to involve court and things like that was not an option in the first place? It's not so hard to say that the experts who did the analysis and confirmed that it was MJ singing on the songs was this guy and this guy (or girl). So why not do it? Why leave everything so vague?

Maybe because they want to protect their identities from the Anti Cascio group, or just because the experts themselves don't want to be spammed by fans or even stalked.




@Pentum So because you THINK it's not MJ that means we should all ?

Best way to end this would be if someone could hire a musicologist maybe MJJC ?

But then maybe Anti Cascio people would say those reports are fake too so yeah.

 

[StellaJackson]

Maybe because they want to protect their identities from the Anti Cascio group, or just because the experts themselves don't want to be spammed by fans or even stalked.

There isn't an anti-Cascio group. Just people that don't hear Michael on the songs.

 

[Pentum]

my post was short, I had said if you think this person is "well respected" then contact him

Bumper replied that he doesn't have the money to hire him

I replied saying I said contact him and not hire him.

As I said, I don't read all the posts in here. So while skipping the boring posts, I must've skipped yours. I am deeply sorry.

 

[ivy]

There isn't an anti-Cascio group. Just people that don't hear Michael on the songs.

I would classify people who write stuff like "Cascios are worse than x, y,z" as anti-Cascio group.