Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
I have 3 factors that i put into my reasoning (by the way i originally thought the tracks were fake and later changed my mind upon thinking about it)
1. Common Sense (It's a Michael Jackson album)
2. No one would benefit from the transaction (As Sony would not have spent money on something that was fake, i assume they had it analysed first so that they had insurance that their money wasn't being wasted)
3. Accepting that there was no proof otherwise and having gone down a list of Socratic possibilities came to the conclusion i am at.
Your theory will depend upon the questions you ask. So if you ask wrong questions, your answers will lead you to th wrong conclusion. Your three factors aren't complete, hence they fit your theory. But if you add some further info to your factors, there'll be more possible theories than what you suggested. Thus if I complete the undeniable info it would read something like this:
1.
Common sense (It's a Michael Jackson album assembled in
complete absence of the main concerned: Michael Jackson)
2.
The one who would benefit is the one who could sell more fakes on future albums (before the buyer analyses it (SONY), the seller would most probably took that precaution before selling the tracks in order to fool the buyer just in case this latter doubts and decides to analyses them)
3.
The proof is:
a) those particular
three tracks were questioned
b) time, energy, money was spent to (half*)
analyse those tracks (*without comparing them to Jason's voice, but only to Michael's, similarities are clear, but if they compared them to Jason's vocals the similarities would have been even clearer)
c) Breaking News was obviously
streamed to see the public's reaction --it wasn't very good (but too late, the CDs were already done, packed and most probably ready to be shipped).
d) Teddy Riley and Eddie Cascio both
failed to prove it is Michael
on Oprah, despite the fact that Eddie possessed several home videos and photographs with Michel in them.
e) Taryll claims that every single trace was destroyed (
traces being all destroyed are rather unbelievable than believable)
f) On some places the
singer's accent is drastically different from Michael's
g) The
voice tone, the timbre, the husk are closer to a sound-alike than to MJ
i) The
lyrics are extremely either poor in meaning, contain too much
stereotype or inappropriate compared to all what Michael has been fighting for in his songs.
j)
Not a single demo that we possess from "the Jackson 5" era to "This is it" movie does not sound (including 2000 Watts & Shout)
as different as the Cascio tracks.
etc., etc.
What other proof is needed?
How do you explain Milli Vanilli?
Why do you think Sony wouldn't benefit from putting the Cascio tracks on the album? This is exactly the reason such low quality questionable tracks are on the ablum - to make a profit. Instead of including 10 genuine Michael Jackson songs, Sony put three sub-par songs on this album and save three genuine songs for future release. It works for Sony. The album is doing well for a posthumous release. The questionable tracks open the door for more questionable tracks to be released in the future. Songs with partial Michael Jackson vocals out-number songs with complete Michael Jackson vocals. Putting the Cascio tracks on the ablum seems to be an investment that pays off.
Could you offer us any substantial proof that back up your conclusion?
Completely agree love is magical
