I'm back, so I have a little time to answer your points.
no. I'm saying that you can ask but not demand. and even if you ask it doesn't mean you'll get what you want.
Ask or demand is not actually important in itself, what is important is not to take "no" as an answer.
you clearly do not know how media operates. that album was released a year ago. from media's perspective that's old news.
I clearly don't know anything I am a dumb.
On a serious note, you seem to mix things up. The release of the new album is old news. The controversy when BN was streamed is old news. The report written by the Estate is old news. But the debate triggered by the controversy is not over. And it is clear that if we hide the debate it will be forgotten by the media and labeled as old news. MJ's death is old news too, yet it is re-ignited by Dr. Murray trial and it's all over on the news again. It's not hidden in some kind of invisible thread to the public eye.
I wouldn't say no one is shouting fraud. saying it's "100% malachi" is saying it's fraud. you might be the minority if you classify it as "controversy", majority of the doubters classify it as blatant and intentional fraud. that's a criminal accusation and base for defamation in US.
U.S. or not, the MJ's fans are not limited to the U.S. jurisdiction nor territory. As far as I know, even this site is not American, it's British if I am not wrong. If SONY/Estate refuse to publish the details of the report done by the forensics it is a completely logical outcome that the fans will draw their own conclusions and indeed shout FRAUD! If SONY/Estate have nothing to hide, then they should publish the reports and shut the fans' mouths rather than chase them on youtube and spy on them in the forums.
if it didn't happen the first time the chance that it would happen this much late is a lot less.
Giving-up attitude again? You know there are some people who would say: "Nobody could do it, so I
must do it". And there are others who would say "Nobody could do it, so how do you expect me to do it." Your posts reflects rather this second attitude.
and I explained it why. you and I might be still interested in this topic but there's also another group that isn't. also this thread went through several processes. the controversy was initially all over a section, then it was limited to 4 threads, then it was limited to 1 thread, later it's removed to this section. the album section is also closed and some topics are moved to other sections. That's the natural process of a topic goes through.
First, it is not a natural process to put all the threads in a hidden forum. According to your logic the entire news section would be hidden now because it's old news.
Second, if I follow your logic regarding subjectivity-objectivity, then you should put Dr. Murray's trial in the controversy thread too, since there is a lawsuit and a debate within the lawsuit.
Third, this isn't about you and me, nor any fans, nor this web site, nor this thread, it is all about Michael Jackson. We are facing the biggest problem ever in MJ's musical history and career because of SONY/Estate, and some fans still can ignoringly enjoy those tracks without wanting to know what really happened.
No matter how you turn it inside out or upside down, but there is one undeniable OBJECTIVE fact:
We do not know a damn thing about those songs. We do not have a slightest proof they are Michael's, we do not have the report from the forensic, we do not have any raw acappellas or raw demos or worktapes, not a damn thing. These facts are undeniable, yet immensly important to convince the public opinion. How does SONY or Estate expect to convince us without any recorded evidence or proof? Only by writing a poor little summarized report and by Oprah's show where Eddie and Teddy all they had to say was "it is Michael" and showing a picture of an empty studio? I am sorry, but all they did was "LEADING" without a slightest proof to back it up. Yet you are telling me that asking forensics if Malachi's singing would be leading?
If I pointed my finger at the moon and asked you if this was planet Mars, how would you react? You would say that my question was "leading" when you can clearly see the difference between the moon and Mars?
Well I'm not the one that said it. Maximum Jackson has contacted this expert in UK and he said asking to compare it to Malachi would be leading and introduce bias. So please take your issues with him and not me.
In other words that forensic purely couldn't make the difference between the two. It is not because someone is a forensic that he or she must follow the same rules out of court such as asking question if it's Malachi. Saying that the question is leading to me would be the same as if someone couldn't make the difference between the moon and Mars when asking "Is this Mars?" while pointing at the moon.
and what are you doing if you are not taking no as an answer? write on this thread ? write on twitter? curse frank cascio on twitter (not you personally)? so really what's being done about this ?
I am going to continue to send e-mails. As long as I don't get the answer, those songs are non-Michael Jackson songs to me and I certainly will spread that around me be it on the forums or in my classrooms, schools and institutions to all those who are interested in the subject. SONY/Estate attitude of "no" will certainly fire back as a bad-publicity boomerang. The day they give me the proof, I'll correct my statement and inform people around me. Other doubters probably do the same around them.
did I say that? I said my personal experience , backed it up with examples from Michael's recordings and told what I found plausible and not plausible.
How do you know from your own experience how Michael recorded? There is no correlation between the two.
and personally I haven't heard any musicians and artists comment on the "copy -paste" issue. They commented on the vocals but not copy paste.
Copy-paste is not the issue in itself. The issue IS the leading vocal that does not sound identical within the same song. Be it copy-pasted or directly recorded for the song, it has been addressed by the musicians by saying that something is wrong with the vocals. And it is. But not to you apparently.
how can you know it is copy pasted to get it out? how would you know that michael didn't sing "buttercup a day" and they replaced it with the copy paste "breaking the news"?
Because you can clearly hear the cuts. My ear is trained enough to know when a person says a sentence vs. when a person breaks the sentences into separated words. I teach students not to do that and I hear it on Breaking News, but not becaus ethe person decided to break his sentence into words, but because the words have been cut and pasted to majke a sentence. It is as obvious as "Take me away" fabrication. It has nothing to do with the subjectivity.
that he doesn't sound like Michael is your subjective opinion. and processing
No Ivy. Subjectivity is when you out of blue say something you believe it's true. Objectivity is when you observe things and draw conclusions. I have observed MJ for decades. And after those decades I can say with confidence when I hear Michael. I have observed also another singer that sounds like Michael -- Malachi. I am still astonished how close he can sound to Michael's voice. When I observe the Cascio tracks and MIchael Jackson's previous songs, they do not sound the same voice. When I observe Malachi's voice and the voice on the Cascio tracks the voice does sound more like Malachi than Jackson.
It is pure observation.
Now, I can draw conclusions:
A) MJ sang those songs, but I am unable to recognize MJ's voice any more
B) Jason Malachi sang them so I clearly heard it
Now if I have such a dilemma all I can do is turn to SONY/Estate and require the full report made by the forensics. They refuse.
Well, between my conclusion A or B, they don't give me a choice, do they -- I don't recognize Michael, although I recognize Michael in post 2007 recordings.
What is subjective here? Nothing. I try to be as objective as possible, but I bascally don't have any choice but rely on what I hear and not on what the official statement wants me to make believe without a single proof.
Finally, their forensic conclusion isn't any more objective that is my life experience in listening to Michael's voice.
which again shows you that these are the original songs and not worked on songs. why wouldn't they replace porte with someone else if the goal is to fool people? have you ever considered perhaps some of porte's vocals were unremoveable? like cascio's already processed them to a mix?
Oh I certainly have considered that Porte is entirely integrated into those songs and I am not denying it, but I wonder if you have considered that the lead vocals are not Michael's, which is the issue here actually.
you can't say that they succeeded right? aren't you all focusing on copy pastes? so they did a crappy job that was the perfect crime? Naah I don't think so.
Well they did do a crappy job, but not only regarding the copy-pastes, but also regarding the lyrics, copied melodies from other songs, not to mention the voice timbre and the accent of the singer.
Much respect for all of you, though.
