I'm not sure if that would have been problematic honestly. Copyright registration is nothing more than establishing an independent party proof against your work being stolen. By registering them as equally crediting credits to Michael Jackson hence Michael Jackson Estate Eddie had also gave power to the Estate over these songs. If Estate didn't agree with Eddie in regards to authenticity they could simply reject to give approval to any release.
real life example: recently a man came forward claiming to have a 50 year old recording of Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis. He authenticates it, experts say it's Presley and Lewis. So he takes it to the Elvis Estate who say it's Lewis but it's not Presley (which is quite funny IMO - what jerry lee lewis "faked" a recording with Elvis?). so is the guy in problematic situation because he claims to have Elvis recordings, nope. Is he at a powerful stage because he has Elvis recordings. Nope, Elvis's estate basically shut down him. What does he do? Release a 30 second snippet and ask Elvis fans to force Elvis Estate to accept and release that recording.
Anyway you turn it, to me so far the issue is not the legal registering. So, well, ok Eddie wouldn't have had problems, but legally he'd still be clean; So it doesn't change my statement about the fact that we can close the debate regarding the legal aspect at this point.
I believe their statement said forensic musicologists? Let me check. yes it does. forensic musicologist are music experts (generally music professors) that are experienced in song , music comparisons, pitch etc. I don't think they would be language experts.
Well, music or audio forensic, the results will still remain equally subjective. While they focus on music and the singing, they don't focus on the accent and the way some words are pronounced. What is their actual knowledge about the alleged impostor? None, since they haven't analyzed neither his voice nor his music. In my next post, I am inviting you to listen to MONSTER and LET ME LET GO, not only vocally speaking, but in terms of style. It is exactly the same style. No wonder about that.
I don't think that they are disregarded. I believe the whole argument was in regard to bias and subjectivity. For example I've been MJ fan for 23 years. I cannot claim to have expertise about music - as I have no education in the subject and I cannot claim to have trained ears - and by that I mean again musician's ears. Secondly it has been argued that my rationality and logical and legal approach has affected my opinion. As you can see if I was a witness in court and said "This is Michael Jackson singing" it would be nothing more than a personal opinion. Anyone who is a musician would be 10 times knowledgeable than me to give an opinion, any musician who worked extensively with Michael would be 10000 times more experienced than me to give an opinion, anyone who is not a fan would be more objective.
And I can assure you that you don't need any musicologist to tell you who or what you hear. A musicologist can analyze, interpret, dissecate, and what not, but it cannot tell what your brain hears, no way. Neither audio nor music forensics.
That was exactly my point when I was pointing out familiar voices. If your mother or father sang, whose voice you know very well, as well as their style, would you need a musicologist forensic to confirm it for you? I don't think so.
And in this case, being a legal witness or not doesn't change a thing to the fact what you hear or not.
as you know that I agree with you that almost all tests would have some sort of error in them. I do my surveys and my results comes with 95% + - 2 standard deviation. However I do not think that they are subjective. I mean they use pre- established methods making them quite objective.
Well, in my next part about results accuracy regarding forensics analysis I'll talk about the percentages.
this actually a catch 22 in my book. If we agree that the forensic experts cannot give reliable and accurate proof that it's Michael singing, it means that similarly they cannot say it's Jason singing either. Therefore we would need to accept that this cannot be proven either way and that everyone should form their own opinions.
Nobody is looking to prove that Jason is on those tracks. But, we can safely say that it isn't Michael's timbre, nor his accent, nor his singing habit. In order to be sure that it is Jason, they should analyze his songs first, and then have his confession that he did it. But of course when we have niether one or the other information, we can only rely on those ho have been analyzing Jason and who know his singing style.
So again, please listen to my snippets that I am going to upload. It is worthy. It will give you a perspective from another angle.