adamschoales
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,392
- Points
- 48
I'm going to be playing devils advocate here, and I hope that all fans can hold a REASONABLE conversation without calling each other names and haters and garbage like that. Are we not civil?
But consider this:
Perhaps Sony is mistaken, but without malice, and this isn't Michael Jackson. It's possible. How do we know this? Well, they've been known to not do all their homework. Look at "This Is It". Nobody figured out the Paul Anka connection until after it was released. Eventually things were settled but do you remember the hooplah regarding that? It took them a few days to make a statement.
Now, true, they have made a statement already is there not a chance they are mistaken again?
Other things to consider:
Experts verified this was Michael, but how many? One? Three? Of how many? Did they bring in 5 experts and they all agreed? Were two saying yay three saying nay? If they got at least one conclusive "yes" would they run with it and ignore evidence to the contrary?
Why would the estate/family lie? They stand to gain NOTHING from it. It creates controversy and the album wont sell which means they won't see their share of the profits. That's bad.
Why would Sony lie? What do they stand to gain? If they *know* it's fake, but don't own up to it, they could be exposed and thigns get messy. If they get away with it they make money off of fake tracks. It's a risky move, but let's face it - how are we going to prove them wrong. After all, they had "experts".
Another thing: FBI Forensic Musicologist? I can understand the FBI having forensic audiologists for analysing distorted kidnapping tapes, but why on earth would they have forensic musicologists? I don't think this is a common problem. With Johnny Cash, or Nirvana, or Elvis, or Tupac records we never have this problem, so why would the FBI have a branch dedicated to it? And would someone specializing in analysing scrambled/modified speaking voices be able to properly analyze a singing voice? It's two completely different worlds - the way I sound when I speak vs when I sing is no where near alike.
Finally remember this: like the social network said "If you had invented facebook, you'd have invented facebook". If this were 100% without a doubt Michael Jackson these conversations wouldn't be happening.
All we know for SURE is this: we will never really know...
But consider this:
Perhaps Sony is mistaken, but without malice, and this isn't Michael Jackson. It's possible. How do we know this? Well, they've been known to not do all their homework. Look at "This Is It". Nobody figured out the Paul Anka connection until after it was released. Eventually things were settled but do you remember the hooplah regarding that? It took them a few days to make a statement.
Now, true, they have made a statement already is there not a chance they are mistaken again?
Other things to consider:
Experts verified this was Michael, but how many? One? Three? Of how many? Did they bring in 5 experts and they all agreed? Were two saying yay three saying nay? If they got at least one conclusive "yes" would they run with it and ignore evidence to the contrary?
Why would the estate/family lie? They stand to gain NOTHING from it. It creates controversy and the album wont sell which means they won't see their share of the profits. That's bad.
Why would Sony lie? What do they stand to gain? If they *know* it's fake, but don't own up to it, they could be exposed and thigns get messy. If they get away with it they make money off of fake tracks. It's a risky move, but let's face it - how are we going to prove them wrong. After all, they had "experts".
Another thing: FBI Forensic Musicologist? I can understand the FBI having forensic audiologists for analysing distorted kidnapping tapes, but why on earth would they have forensic musicologists? I don't think this is a common problem. With Johnny Cash, or Nirvana, or Elvis, or Tupac records we never have this problem, so why would the FBI have a branch dedicated to it? And would someone specializing in analysing scrambled/modified speaking voices be able to properly analyze a singing voice? It's two completely different worlds - the way I sound when I speak vs when I sing is no where near alike.
Finally remember this: like the social network said "If you had invented facebook, you'd have invented facebook". If this were 100% without a doubt Michael Jackson these conversations wouldn't be happening.
All we know for SURE is this: we will never really know...
Last edited: