Michael Jackson To Unleash World Premiere Experience At Billboard Music Awards

[ivy]

And again, why is all the harsh and frustration filled comments from your side against us, going unnoticed?

It didn't. In my original "why the anger" post, I ended it with we - meaning all of us - showing respect to each other. In the later post I complained about fighting - which requires at least two parties. So it's not going unnoticed. But as last tear commented let's not act like your "side" has been angels. Starting from the "hardcore" fans comments and claiming knowing more than people who are educated / work in this industry etc. there have been negative comments towards other people. Neither one is okay. As for frustration - I only sense anger and frustration from your "side", and other "side" for the most of the time not really caring.. And when did we had "sides" in this regard? Isn't this division among fans getting tired as well? Sure we don't agree on every regard (not limited to the hologram) but do we really need to divide ourselves into sides?

Things can get heated when people simply misconstrue words, and put forth these false labels, simply because we don't see things their way.

so now you realize how that hardcore / causal labels was problematic? Or do you only have a problem when it is done to you?

Fact is, we just don't appreciate being taken for fools, and will gather whatever we can and point out whatever we can, to show that they take us for fools and to prove to them that we know better so they won't try to do it again.

Okay but don't hold your breath.. because if I'm being honest, on the grand scale of things, I don't think what a group of fans say matter that much

even though we realize they're trying to play us for a bunch of fools.

see this "play us for a bunch of fools" is quite intriguing to me.

I'll try to explain it. In advertising industry some people complained that product placement and/or having celebrities to hold / use certain products in movies/ programs etc was playing the public as fools because they weren't being told that celebrities were being paid for that use of the product. However research showed that close to 90 percent of public knew that celebrities being paid for it. So they didn't need anyone come out and say to them "we are paying these celebrities" and therefore they weren't being fooled.

You keep giving the example of how they advertised it "MJ you have never seen" and how it was playing you for a fool but did they really? For example David Copperfield had been advertised as making Statue of Liberty disappear when it didn't and everyone knew that it was an illusion. So they weren't really being lied to or being played as fools. Similarly I believe - at least speaking as general public and some of the fans - know that Michael is dead and nothing presented could be Michael. Even if it's a 100% animation and no impersonator, it can't be Michael or real. So if that's how I approached to this situation, I was aware what they were saying wasn't to be taken literally and they haven't played or fooled me. Very similar to the initial example I don't need them to be explicit and say "btw that ain't real Michael" as I already know it. And to be honest if they did that I would personally take it as an insult to my intelligence. So are they really playing us as fools? or do we really need to spoon fed the very basic information? I'm not sure. I guess each to it's own in this regard.

And because of it, we're obsessed?

And this is a nice example of twisting what I said. I said "that takes a certain level of dedication and even obsession". Why not select dedication as the word describing you, why focus on obsession? It's not my problem that you choose to act like obsession describes you, rather than dedication. Currently I would see it as a highly interest topic but if this discussion continues for 4 years I would have no problem of calling it an obsession then.

In that case, everyone can't be right, but I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

and I'm glad that we have a better understanding.

What struck out at me was the quote from Jermaine which is quite old that the brothers are working on new music, somehow the journalist has taken that to mean there will be a virtual concert. - I really don't know how he arrived at that from that Jermaine quote.

That comes from an interview in 2012 , after the Tupac Hologram. Jacksons was asked back then about their thoughts about Tupac hologram and they said they liked it, it could have been Michael and they could tour with him. Journalist is recycling that old interview. Oh and the mention of a hologram came from Jackie not Jermaine. and later they stated they didn't mean a tour with a hologram, just that they liked the idea of a hologram etc.

some quotes from that

Jackson’s brother Jackie told The Sun: “It could have been Michael - absolutely. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?” He added, “As a matter of fact, we had that idea two years ago for Michael’s Cirque du Soleil show”, referencing The IMMORTAL World Tour dance-music-light extravaganza currently touring the States.

 

[LastTear]

^^^^^ Thanks Ivy, I remember that and the following um.......upset amongst fans it created. Lol - I thought Jermaine did say they were working on new music but I didn't think it belonged in the same interview and had nothing to do with any hologram. I may be wrong.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

I get what you're saying Ivy, I just don't agree with that point of view (the whole David Copperfield thing). Because they're still attempting to imply that it's a full computer generated image. But whatever, I know better....In the meantime, you still have people like Petrarose implying that we simply believed this at first because of what someone said prior to the performance. Lol, I didn't see anyone say anything prior to the performance and thought it was an impersonator from the very first moment. You still have people implying that we somehow don't promote Xscape or it's songs, because we spent time finding what we needed to to back our opinions for this. When prior to this, I, Birchey and others stayed in the album thread, saying how goood it was, the songs we didn't like, the decisions they made we didn't like. But for the most part, I've always voiced my enjoyment of the album. And Birchey's already promoted STTR long before the Estate did with that "Virtual Valentino" performance, with his remix that he began working on before the album even officially dropped. I've been posting song quotes and the album cover all over my facebook and instagram. Yet these incorrect evaluations by Petrarose are just allowed to continue right? Lol okay. And when was the last time you saw me use the term "Hardcore" or "Casual" in this thread, it hasn't been for about a week or two now, as I realized people were getting offended by it and let it go. Yet you still have Petrarose commenting in their manner, yet none of it is being spoken on. Lol.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Well, Youtube is usually a good indicator of how popular or beloved something is. The problem with you saying that you talked to people who didn't like it and use it to grange the overall public reaction is that you are surveying a small sample pool. just because you talk to thirty people (for example) who don't like performance doesn't mean they represent the majority. For example, everyone I talked to enjoyed the performance and Ivy said she talked to people who didn't like, liked, and thought it was creepy. Does that make our observations more right than yours, no.

Youtube isn't perfect, but unless you are going to argue that the estate or certain people did something to inflate the number and the positive rating, than most people who searched and watched the video enjoyed the performance for what it was, nothing more nothing less. I mean, most people were impressed by the CGI Tupac despite all the very obvious flaws.

Except you can't realistically come to that conclusion because you actually don't know. Who's "most people"? You know who wasn't impressed with CGI Tupac? His fans. But that's neither here nor there, fact is, you can't use Youtube as proof for a populations enjoyment of something. You'd be foolish to do so, you know how many MJ haters watched that video? Just look at the comments, see how many of them are about pedophilia, again are you happy about that? Are you proud that those types are viewing the video adding to it's view count? Whatever the case, it doesn't mean they like it right? Oh and one more thing Ramona, here's another fact for you to marinate on, or not, whatever you choose to do. Michael's original Youtube account, which was the official account from the Estate, had more than half of it's video's removed after Youtube staff found out they were paying for views...It wasn't just Michael's page though, Universal/WMG's page got half it's stuff removed as well, as well as a couple of other label backed pages like Atlantic. So you assert that Youtube is this site where you can guage how much something is enjoyed or how many people "love it" and that there isn't anything that can be done on that site to "cheat", for lack of a better term, is inaccurate.


And here we go again with you misconstruing words. Where in that post did I say the people I've spoken to represented the majority...I'll wait for you to point that out to me.

What I actually said was "The majority of people that I've spoken to outside of this forum, didn't enjoy the performance or simply thought it was distasteful.." THAT'S what I said, not that those people I spoke to represented the majority. I also didn't say ANYWHERE in that post that I used that sentence in an attempt to gauge what the general public feels about "Virtual Valentino", because that simply isn't why I said it. I said simply that the majority of people that I've encountered, simply didn't like it. That's it, I left it at that..I didn't go into any explanations of what that meant or anything, I just left it..At..That.

@LastTear, twisting words again. I didn't say "all the posts from our side have been polite fair and "non ridiculing". I just simply told Ivy where all the harsh and frustration filled comments stem from. I didn't say whether either side was more polite than the other. I simply said there's a reason for it. Things would also be going a lot more "light-spirited" in here, had you, Bubs and others not constantly misconstrue whenever you see fit. Thanks.

 

[LastTear]

@WhoIsIt89

@LastTear, twisting words again. I didn't say "all the posts from our side have been polite fair and "non ridiculing". I just simply told Ivy where all the harsh and frustration filled comments stem from. I didn't say whether either side was more polite than the other. I simply said there's a reason for it. Things would also be going a lot more "light-spirited" in here, had you, Bubs and others not constantly misconstrue whenever you see fit. Thanks.

*Sigh* There just was a lot of 'your side' comments! I didn't twist anything. We agree it has been from both sides of the fence, my post was an attempt to try to bring this thread back to some polite debate, unfortunately by your response I see you are not willing to do the same. So on that vein, by you saying had Bubs, myself and others not questioned anything you would have enjoyed this thread more sums it all up. You will see that as a twist on your words but I know I haven't constantly or deliberately misconstrued anything so how else should I view it?

 

[WhoIsIt89]

@WhoIsIt89

*Sigh* There just was a lot of 'your side' comments! I didn't twist anything. We agree it has been from both sides of the fence, my post was an attempt to try to bring this thread back to some polite debate, unfortunately by your response I see you are not willing to do the same. So on that vein, by you saying had Bubs, myself and others not questioned anything you would have enjoyed this thread more sums it all up. You will see that as a twist on your words but I know I haven't constantly or deliberately misconstrued anything so how else should I view it?

I'm trying to understand what this means. I said something about you guys questioning anything? I said the tone in this thread probably wouldn't be as bad as it is had people not constantly, deliberately misconstrued words. If you didn't do it, I apologize, however you've indirectly supported it by hitting the "thanks" button, on various posts that did misconstrue our words. Like Bubs (and Ivy at one point) misconstruing our words of, Alki's claims simply adding on to the proof that we already had, and turning it into "So you say it's an impersonator because Alki said so"..That stuff gets annoying, because I saw no attempts from Bubs or anyone else, to simply apologize for getting our words twisted. And they continued to do it, heck, Bubs just did it on the last page, deliberately ignoring what Birchey actually said, and replacing what was actually said, with what they wanted to imagine he said. Then when it's "uhm I didn't say that, go back and show me where I actually said that", it's never done and there's just another response made of misconstrued words. Like, recognize the misconstruing you've done and just admit to it. All will be forgiven. But as of now, it just seems like everyone just simply wants to paint us as the bad guys, the Razor Ramon of MJJC. Lulz.

I agree that some politeness should be brought back to this debate. But that isn't going to happen as long as you have Petrarose in here mocking people, and incorrectly claiming that we don't promote the album and it's songs. It's not going to change as long as those posters are here, who solely quote our posts just to flame our opinions. We know it isn't just you guys, we've admitted it, yet neither of you are taking any blame for the things you've done to add to this frustration in this thread.

 

[Gold Pants Girl]

At 3:30 you can see the stand-in in full costume and wig.

 

[LastTear]

I'm trying to understand what this means. I said something about you guys questioning anything? I said the tone in this thread probably wouldn't be as bad as it is had people not constantly, deliberately misconstrued words. If you didn't do it, I apologize, however you've indirectly supported it by hitting the "thanks" button, on various posts that did misconstrue our words. Like Bubs (and Ivy at one point) misconstruing our words of, Alki's claims simply adding on to the proof that we already had, and turning it into "So you say it's an impersonator because Alki said so"..That stuff gets annoying, because I saw no attempts from Bubs or anyone else, to simply apologize for getting our words twisted.

I agree that some politeness should be brought back to this debate. But that isn't going to happen as long as you have Petrarose in here mocking people, and incorrectly claiming that we don't promote the album and it's songs. It's not going to change as long as those posters are here, who solely quote our posts just to flame our opinions. We know it isn't just you guys, we've admitted it, yet neither of you are taking any blame for the things you've done to add to this frustration in this thread.

I have acknowledged where I found myself taking the same tone.

Its very hard I think to sometimes be able to see things from someone else's perspective - and as I said much, much earlier in this thread we are all passionate about different aspects of what happens around Michael. I understand it was frustrating for you re Alki, but can you not see it at all from another perspective, given his history?

I think the problem here is that somewhere along the line someone has posted in a certain tone and some have replied with the same tone and so it goes on. I have done it (and now I'm trying my best to ignore that one) and so have you. So I guess we should do our best to ignore and rise above it, if it upsets you too much you can put that member on ignore.

Time me will tell if I can practice what I preach. Lol

 

[#MJforever57]

We all seem to be taking on a certain tone in here and I know I have written some things and taken on a tone that I have never done on this forum before, kind of adjusting to ones environment I think.

So due to the lack of moderation in this thread can I suggest we all check ourselves.

I agree we need to cool down it is going to far.

 

[SmoothGangsta]

In my opinion it isn't full CGI, it's obvious it isn't, in my opinion. I could see from the minute it started it wasn't. You can tell it's an impersonator's body with a glow effect added to it to make it look more computer generated. And I really don't think that's the best they could have done with the CG face.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

@ LastTear, I get it, but that's also why we repeatedly tried to explain that his expertise in this technology, simply added on to what we had already gathered. And that what he said in the past in regards to Michael & paternity, really had nothing to do with this situation. Which in reality, it really didn't. We called him out in the past for his transgressions against Michael in regards to the B. Howard crap, but simply put, he has some expertise in "hologram" technology, we just weren't as willing to write him off in regards to that, as we were in regards to Michael & B. Howard.

Anyway, I personally apologize to you for any tone I have may taken towards you during this discussion. I just simply believe what I do in regards to how this was done, and I'll just leave it at that for the most part. Closing, I support the concept and the idea, I love that itself, but if the only way they can execute simulating Michael in a live setting is by using "Virtual Valentino", I'd just rather they not.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

Double post, my bad.

 

[Petrarose]

Whoisit you are mixing up the meaning of what has been said in some of the posts and you are not seeing the statements in their contexts. Maybe you should slow down and take a deep breath.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

More mocking? We've all pretty much gotten past this and are now trying to discuss things in a respectful manner. Perhaps you should do the same.


I read things for exactly what they were, you "laughing" at everyone who voices their opinion that it "clearly isn't Michael". You claiming we don't promote the album or any of it's songs simply because we don't fawn over "Virtual Valentino". So yeah, I think I understand the context of your posts perfectly fine. If you can't do anything else outside your attempts to mock and flame, it's better off you just don't respond to me. K, Thnx, Bai.

 

[Petrarose]

^^Again I repeat you are misconstruing what was said in some of the posts and taking them away from their context. As an example^^ I never said we don't promote the album or any of it's songs simply because we don't fawn over "Virtual Valentino". What is the point of that? I thought you said the estate lied to us? Now you are doing the lying. You are right though I find this comical.

I suggest you visit the people who made the illusion, interview them, look at their work and then you will have good facts. Then, I would not laugh anymore.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

So you're saying all the information we've gathered to support our opinion isn't good enough? When we have captured proof of the impersonator, and the dance moves shared between one known tribute artist and this supposed CGI...Lol, yeah okay. And people wonder why this thread took a turn for the worst.


And I said you implied that we don't promote the album because we don't fawn over "Virtual Valentino", which you did. Don't try and backtrack now, just admit it and move on. That's all. You specifically told Birchey to use his creative talents to promote the album and his songs. As if he wasn't doing that before with his remix of Slave To The Rhythm and his recent remix of Chicago. Don't backtrack, just fess up. Things will be a whole lot better.


[quote="Petrarose]About the comment about going back to the studio: Have you considered using that great creative ability to promote Xscape or a song? You can do your own illusion of Slave and post it on u-tube and have people view it. That would bring more sales of the album and introduce younger people to Michael, so they could investigate his established works. How about doing little videos of other Michael material? Aren't those more constructive than using your great talent to rip apart or crush the work of others? The illusion that you decry was also made by people who used Their creative talents too. Work is more enduring when it is done to lift up rather than to pull down--think about that.[/QUOTE]

I'm lying though? LMAO!

 

[czechstar]

This is all so depressing. Just chill y'all. It was fun, people are talking about Michael again. And it's POSITIVE

 

[Petrarose]

Glad you put the quote because it shows you that it does not convey any such thing about a "we" that you are talking about. What I am getting is that you have a problem handling large bodies of data and keeping the train of thought & concepts straight. My suggestion to Birchy does not include a "we" unless you see your identify connected to that of another poster. It involves a specif statement to a person due to a specific statement the person made since what you quote there was attached to another quote. You can't engage in debate if you do not follow how concepts & statements flow from one to another. I also never backtrack.

You are still entertaining though, and I thank you for that.

 

[LastTear]

@ LastTear, I get it, but that's also why we repeatedly tried to explain that his expertise in this technology, simply added on to what we had already gathered. And that what he said in the past in regards to Michael & paternity, really had nothing to do with this situation. Which in reality, it really didn't. We called him out in the past for his transgressions against Michael in regards to the B. Howard crap, but simply put, he has some expertise in "hologram" technology, we just weren't as willing to write him off in regards to that, as we were in regards to Michael & B. Howard.

Anyway, I personally apologize to you for any tone I have may taken towards you during this discussion. I just simply believe what I do in regards to how this was done, and I'll just leave it at that for the most part. Closing, I support the concept and the idea, I love that itself, but if the only way they can execute simulating Michael in a live setting is by using "Virtual Valentino", I'd just rather they not.

And that's fair enough, my only concern and where I get/got hot under the collar wasn't so much whether an impersonator was used but the assumptions that the estate specifically lied, when I honestly can't see where they have, as I said the Leech quote isn't direct from Branca. (As far as we know)., plus I'm not entirely sure illusions should be pulled apart and dissected as you will always lose any magic there might be there. Anyway that's just where I'm coming from.

As I said I understand you frustrations re Alki but hand on heart if he had said the opposite on this subject and someone had quoted it do you honestly think no one would have mentioned his lies on paternity?

 

[Tygger]

Wise Guy, I saw your post before you deleted it. Yes, you ARE better. Great job!

Birchey, WhoIsIt89, Kapital77, LomKit, and others who believe that was an impersonator on Billboard’s stage: I simply agree and I thank you for your time, responses, and research.

I understand your frustration however; paraphrasing: I have been there, I have done this before, and I remain. Always initiated by the same, small group and follows the same, routine pattern. Clockwork. However; I have found the activity has a reversal effect and validates the view more so because the responses to the view focus almost solely on one's assumption of the poster's character and misinterpretation of the poster's words and not the poster’s actual view. The attempt is always to silence the poster which in turn may somehow silence the threatening view(s). Hilarious!

The YT argument? My favorite theory thus far! However; Virtual Valentino (I like that name!) has not even a tenth of the views the authentic Michael has garnered for his short film done over two decades ago. Good thing to know all is still somewhat right with the world and the sporting activities continue like clockwork.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

@ Petrarose, That's your rebuttal? You're right, you never "backtrack", you just have a talent for picking at straws.


The "We" comes in, because if you actually read my post, I specifically stated "there will be no politeness as long as you have people like Petrarose who imply that we don't support or promote the albums and it's songs. I didn't say "as long as we have Petrarose who imply, etc. etc....." That's where the "we" comes in, it coincides with the "people like...." comment. For instance, you implied to Birchey that he hasn't used his talent to promote the album and it's songs, which is factually wrong. And I've had Whateverhappens50 (hence "People like Petrarose" and not just "Petrarose) tell me that I don't support the Estate, the album or their purpose of generating funds for Michael's children, which is also factually wrong. So yeah...Just actually read the words and not gloss over things and you'll have a better understanding of what's actually being said.


But anyway, since you aren't contributing any "politeness" in this thread or contributing to the "lifting of spirits" so to speak, and appear incapable of having a respectful discussion. I think it'd be best if you just simply moved along, put me on ignore, whatever you like. Just don't respond to me anymore if you can't do anything besides attempt to mock and flame those who don't agree with you. K, Thnx, Bai.

 

[Petrarose]

This is all so depressing. Just chill y'all. It was fun, people are talking about Michael again. And it's POSITIVE

Sure it is POSITIVE. Look at all the love Michael is getting. Look at all the extra sales after the illusion. I have even found many interesting details in the performance that I commented about. I also loved the way his hand seem to touch the dancer's hand. They did some really nice human details in that performance.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

And that's fair enough, my only concern and where I get/got hot under the collar wasn't so much whether an impersonator was used but the assumptions that the estate specifically lied, when I honestly can't see where they have, as I said the Leech quote isn't direct from Branca. (As far as we know)., plus I'm not entirely sure illusions should be pulled apart and dissected as you will always lose any magic there might be there. Anyway that's just where I'm coming from.

As I said I understand you frustrations re Alki but hand on heart if he had said the opposite on this subject and someone had quoted it do you honestly think no one would have mentioned his lies on paternity?

I understand you may not be able to see it, but we do. BTW, few of us have used the term "lied to" , we were commonly using it early on, but I know I personally have lessened that to "they weren't completely honest" which many of us feel they weren't. For instance, this is the Estate tagline, this THEIR promotion and advertising in collaboration with ABC....




We see "Michael like you've never seen him before", and some of us actually expect to see Michael. Not saying you guys didn't, I'm just trying to prove a point here...Instead what we got, what we felt we got, was simply the projection of an impersonator. As a result that tagline isn't fully true. Some will say, "well you're looking too much into it, they aren't just going to reveal their secret and say "Michael's impersonator like you've never seen him before", and perhaps you're right. But then they continue to put out these videos, not mentioning the impersonator and over and over again saying "we built an image of Michael". When Alki says an impersonator had to be used, the Estate goes out of their way the next day, to say Alki wasn't involved, again implying he was misinformed and no impersonator was actually used. All in all it's simply a matter of perception. Many of us feel they weren't 100% honest, that's it. We went about to back that viewpoint up with more than just our own words. Some people don't feel it was that big of a deal, that little play on words, "Michael like you've never seen him before", and some of us do, because we feel their wasn't any Michael outside of his voice. I've always understood where fellow fans were coming from (Better Ivy? No more sides ), but we weren't always understood, then when we made our point clear of why we was doing all this, we were mocked and flamed, and still continue to be by certain members of this forum.


And no, I don't think nobody would've mentioned his prior statements had he said something more in tune with the Estate's explanation, in better terms, I don't think I'd expect people to be silent about it. But had we said "Alki doesn't know what he's talking about with this hologram, look what he said about Michael & B. Howard", I'd expect more than few of you to respond in similar ways me, Birchey & Co. did. Which is "He has the patent, he has some knowledge of it, and what he said about Michael & B. Howard really has nothing to do with this."


That's what I'd expect. But I get where you're coming from, I really do. And again, I personally apologize for any tone I may have taken up with you. Now I think we can agree to disagree and still discuss this in a respectful manner.

 

[qbee]

Japan Xscape Party. Dance contest Winner brings down the house with a surprising performance.
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Post by MJJFanclub Japan.

 

[Petrarose]

Bravo the illusion is influencing people out there and this is perfect for this thread. How did he get the outfit together so quickly. Just great!!!! This all shows love for the performance!! I expect there will be more people copying that performance which further attests to the success of the illusion.

Thanks Japan. We love the illusion too!

 

[donalb]

The YT argument? My favorite theory thus far! However; Virtual Valentino (I like that name!) has not even a tenth of the views the authentic Michael has garnered for his short film done over two decades ago. Good thing to know all is still somewhat right with the world and the sporting activities continue like clockwork.

Seriously though, the performance was only a week ago. The fact that it already has 10 million views and so many positive votes simply can not be ignored regardless of what you personally may think of the performance

 

[Ramona122003]

Seriously though, the performance was only a week ago. The fact that it already has 10 million views and so many positive votes simply can not be ignored regardless of what you personally may think of the performance

If you want to be technical, those 10 million views are less than a week old and anything over a million is considered viral. I also don't see why you would compare a virtual Michael performance to old videos that has been on Youtube for years (some being classic like Thriller, Bad, Smooth Criminal, and Remember the Times). It wasn't made to compete with those videos, just to enhance Michael's legacy and sell albums.

Really, there are many artists who would kill for those many views on one of their videos, especially in such a short amount of time.

 

[Tygger]

Why the need for moderation? Moderation is not needed when adults treat others the way they want to be treated. If you are adult enough to initiate something, you are adult to accept the response you get in return.

Seriously though, the performance was only a week ago. The fact that it already has 10 million views and so many positive votes simply can not be ignored regardless of what you personally may think of the performance

To assume 10M people viewed the video of Virtual Valentino because they are supporting Xscape and Michael’s legacy in a positive manner is a leap that I am not going to take but, anyone else is free to. There are threads on several forums - even non-MJ ones – where some accept a mission to get the counter higher. Please do not skip WhoIsIt89’s post regarding deceptive practices in the past to get the counter higher as well. The 10M count alone serves how? Is STTR moving up the charts?

I also don't see why you would compare a virtual Michael performance to old videos that has been on Youtube for years (some being classic like Thriller, Bad, Smooth Criminal, and Remember the Times). It wasn't made to compete with those videos, just to enhance Michael's legacy and sell albums.

I did because I understand how numbers are used to support an argument. I am finding it hilarious that credit is being given to an illusion (including impersonator or not, your choice) for promoting STTR and Michael's legacy. I guess no one viewed the video to hear Michael’s vocals?

 

[donalb]

For days now, I have asked several staff members to create a poll so that we could vote on the performance in order to quantify where the MJJC stands on this issue. However, they have been reluctant to do so. If you were able to vote, how would you rate the performance?

A) Fantastic
B) Good
C) OK
D) Poor
E) Horrible

For me, the answer is B. Overall, I thought it was a good performance taking all considerations into account

How would you vote?

 

[Ramona122003]

Why the need for moderation? Moderation is not needed when adults treat others the way they want to be treated. If you are adult enough to initiate something, you are adult to accept the response you get in return.



To assume 10M people viewed the video of Virtual Valentino because they are supporting Xscape and Michael’s legacy in a positive manner is a leap that I am not going to take but, anyone else is free to. There are threads on several forums - even non-MJ ones – where some accept a mission to get the counter higher. Please do not skip WhoIsIt89’s post regarding deceptive practices in the past to get the counter higher as well. The 10M count alone serves how? Is STTR moving up the charts?




I did because I understand how numbers are used to support an argument. I am finding it hilarious that credit is being given to an illusion (including impersonator or not, your choice) for promoting STTR and Michael's legacy. I guess no one viewed the video to hear Michael’s vocals?

If they wanted to view a video for Michael's vocals, they could have just web search for the song itself. I do that all the time. When I want to listen to a song, I search for the song, not for performances or music videos. So, most likely, the people who clicked and viewed the video wanted to see the video, not just listen to vocals. And if they thought the performance sucked, I can't see them given a positive rating just because they happen to like the song.

Also, no one is assuming anything. We just said it was viewed 10 million times and has a high score. We know Youtube is not the end all to say what is popular, unless you have proof that someone has been cooking the numbers saying that they are inflated is an opinion.