Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Yeah, I actually find the vocals on Breaking News quite enjoyable.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

@Aniram, I'm curious. Do you find the vocals on Breaking News enjoyable? Or, do you find the beats and melody of Breaking News enjoyable?

Like the song or not, your standing on the controversy aside, it's fair to say the quality of vocals on Breaking News one of the worst in this album. The tone of voice and the phrasing are out of Michael's characteristics.

I understand how people could enjoy Breaking News. It's a danceable track. But, to say the vocals enjoyable? I'm not sure.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Dear Bumper Snippet,

Dear Shades,

This I want to respond to. I have read all your posts over the last few months

I am flattered.

and I have to say as a (fellow) scientist, (which you state that you are and you use every now and then to gain weight in arguments)

In order to clarify some things here, since you've read all my posts over the last few months, could you please quote me where exactly I said I was a scientist?

I get somewhat uncomfortable and disquiete in the way a) you approach arguments and b) in the way you cloak your arguments in shrouds of science...

What science are you talking about?¨Please clarify.

This snippet above (no pun intended) is one of the many examples. I have seen you call other posts "lame" or "weak" etc.,

Could you please tell and quote how many posts did I ever call "lame" and what was the context?

As far as the term weak is concerned, I always justified by counter-arguments why I considered a post weak, although I don't recollect to have called that many posts backed by solid arguments "weak".

and now you even, to use your own words, "dissect" a mail (your post with #5978) to show how "weak" the argument is; while your approach is anything but scientific.

What's wrong with saying "dissect someone's argument" when you are accused of not reading it?

For example: you start your argument by stating, and I am paraphrasing here, "who listen to jason m. anyway?" or something to this effect.

I am sorry, but here you are clearly NOT paraphrasing me, you are putting your interpretation in my mouth. Anyway, my point was:

1)that if JM did it, he wouldn't admit it, so why bother quoting him?

2)that if you quote JM, why only half of his statement is used "it wasn't me" and the rest of his statement is ignored "it's not MJ"? How strong is that argument? I am sorry again, but accepting only half of what someone says is a purposedly biased, hence weak argument.

Well, if I look at these debates, I would say everyone! (Yes, pun intended). All the OP (Larry) did, is that he/ she gave, on the same scientific premisses that you always seem to use, a psychological perspective on a quote from Jason M. Because Jason is seen as the vocalist of these songs and seems to be part of a great conspiracy (for those are the implications of your arguments),

Wow, what a cocktail of twisted interpretation of what has been said and what I said or did not say. Let me set the record straight here:

1) Larry did NOT use a scientific approach, he used only half of a statement.

2) I am not a scientist and I do not claim to use any scientific premise, where did you read that?

3) Where is it taught that you can give a psychological perspective by quoting only half of a statement of someone? What kind of psychology is that? It is taken out of the context and the part where the same person in the same post says "it is not Michael Jackson" is completely ignored. What do you do with it from the psyhological perspective?

Quoting and accepting only half statements is firstly dishonest, purposedly biased thus weak and secondly could be extremely dangerous. Here is a little homework for you and your fellow Larry. Could you judge from the psychological perspective what Jesus said only upon out of the context sentence in Luke 19:27: "Bring them here and slay them before me"? According to Larry's approach -which is partial- Jesus would order to kill.

4) Basically I, and many other doubters, ask for more facts than what we currently have because we don't hear MJ 100% in those songs. If we don't hear MJ in those songs it is logical to believe that someone is involved in some kind of conspiracy. But this latter is only the result of not hearing MJ on those tracks, not a trigger argument.

I would think that the statements of Jason M. (and his motives) is of great importance if not all-telling. In this the OP has an extremely important point to make that you cannot simple disregard because you think it is *weak*. (Or the last sentences of his post is weak.) His/ her point is made on the basis of psychological theories of motivation and action.

You are repeating yourself now. Ok, I am repeating my question: why accepting one half of the argument and not the entire argument posted but JM saying:

1)"It's not MJ"
2)"I would have done a better job"
3) "SONY shouldn't have marketed this as MJ"

Dissecting every sentence linguistically (for the post was also partly cynical and sarcastic) does not make your argument more "scientific" or "valid".

The reason I dissected it is because I was accused of not reading the argument. By dissecting it I showed that I read every single word and that I provided an answer to every single argument. What makes my argument valid is the observation that Larry as a matter of fact does the same -dissects JM's statement- yet accepts only half of what JM stated.

To the contrary; scientific debate is about positions and counter-positions, and more importantly debating *core* arguments.

What did I debate about? Alice in Wonderland?

You can "dissect" each sentence (your post with #5978), but if you do not address the core argument, (in this case motivation and action) the scientific value of your counter-arguments is non.

Are you claiming that Larry's argument is more scientific by saying that Jason claimed it was not him on those tracks, yet completely ignoring that the very same Jason in the very same post not less than three times claimed it was not MJ either on those tracks. How scientific is that? If Larry had a patient, would he be going to listen only to half of what the patient would say and then draw conclusions?

Or in other words: stating that an opinion/ observation is "lame" or "weak", is showing as a matter of fact the weakness of your own arguments.

First, again, you are repeating yourself. Please quote me how many times I said the word "lame" and what was the context?

Second --this is not a criticism, just an observation-- I can see that you do not post very often, yet you are taking your precious time to read all of my posts over quite a long period and you even take the time to write a long answer to my post which you consider contains weaknesses in order to defend another post containing even more weaknesses which I clearly had pointed out. Bravo.

And this brings me to the core of my disquiet. In the last few weeks I have seen you debate the Cascio songs on basis of your linguistic and scientific knowledge. In your arguments you give the impression that "linguistics" is an *exact science*,but you know that it is not.

If you had read all of my posts you would have noticed that I publicly asked all the people who worked in different areas in music industry, sound engineers, DJs, musicians, singers, linguists, etc. to share their opinions. I said this is what I can offer as a professional opinion as a linguist, I never claimed it was an exact science.

Even though you have made some valid points, your points are at the same time onesided. I don't see a source, I don't see anything of a theoretical framework and premises you are working from, and I def. don't see (which is very important in scietific debate) an openess to approach counter hypothesis on an equal level. Or in other words: even though I see you go to great lengths to disprove an hypothesis that does not fit your opinion; I do not see you take counter-arguments seriously enough to even weight them as evidence or a possible answer.

I am not asking anything else than more facts, but nobody seems to possess them. Not even Eddie. How do you expect me to have more facts? All I can do is develop ideas from what I hear on those tracks, that is to say NOT MJ's voice!

Counter-arguments against your opinion are burned down as "non-scientific", "weak" and "lame", while the premises of scientific debate is that all answers are open! If someone should open their mind for your arguments, shouldn't you open your mind for theirs? Is that not the only way to go scientifically forward?

I am sorry, my mind is open, but my ears are telling me this is not MJ. So you can say whatever you want without tangible facts, my ears will still not hear MJ. I won't lie to myself in order to please non-doubters and say: "oh, of course, I don't hear MJ because of this or that." I need more proof than arguments or counter-arguments.

For all clarification: to me it is not about if MJ sang or do not sang in these songs. I mean it is important to me, but it is not what I'm trying to get at; what does concern me is the *way you position yourself in the debates* or the *way this debate in general* is handled by those who do not think it is MJ. It seems to me that everyone who claims that this is MJ and they *hear* MJ are either "deaf", "not true fans" or musical, linguistic and scientific illiterate - while this is not the case. If the presumption should be taken that this is not MJ, than the presumption that it is MJ should be considered on equal terms.

You defend Larry who says "It is MJ", "I won", "move on", and in the same time you are complaining about the doubters? Unbelievable!

It is the first time in MJ's career history that the tracks are questioned by the very MJ's fans. It should be taken into consideration more seriously than just saying "move on" and "it's MJ".

And here is where I stall... I see arguments with no scientific credit used as "science", I see "observations" stressed as "facts" while they aren't "facts" and I see "opinions" expressed as valid "scientific" arguments while they aren't scientific - all expressed in shrouds of liguistic mystery... (and yes, this last sentence is sarcastic.) The aim of using "science" in your arguments, seems to me, is not to proof or disprove an opinion or observation; the "science" is used to *exclude*. Too often people are questioned for their "scientific" credibility, while at the same time none is given.

Debate can only occur on equal terms...

Again... science. What science are you refering to? Science is not something rigid. It evolves, it is alive. Science IS observation. So far, for my part, I am observing the Cascio's vocals and don't hear MJ. I have no tangible proof either way, except what my ears are telling me. At the same time Eddie did not provide a slightest trace of tangible proof except saying "it is Michael's voice"! Scientifically speaking, when I doubt something I am not taking someone's word. I want proof, which neither Eddie possesses, nor Teddy, nor Larry, nor SONY, nor Estate, nor any believer. What kind of science are you preaching for?

 

[if.it.aint.broke.break.it]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^ No...

I am really shocked people think Teddy, Eddie and all those involved would be doing this to distract people from the trial.

Never mentioned Teddy, Eddie or Frank. I was referring to the estate and Sony.

I'm even more shocked how it got this far.

 

[Pentum]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Small comparison on a typical note pattern Jason usually do:
http://hulkshare.com/on4wk6lx6hb7

The one in DWA is identical to the BN one.

 

[Kapital77]

Small comparison on a typical note pattern Jason usually do:
http://hulkshare.com/on4wk6lx6hb7

The one in DWA is identical to the BN one.

Great job.

Another comparison that shows Jason Malachi sung on all the Cascio´s tracks.

:wild:

[youtube]0ZxLtr-BE-U[/youtube]

[youtube]y0ucSXOQJto[/youtube]

 

[adamschoales]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Tricky Stewart is the producer of the Cascio Ballads... Except "All I Need", I believe.

My mistake. KYHU is not produced by Riley (which I guess makes sense... listening again michael's vocals aren't QUITE as bad as the other cascio tracks... though they're still a bit robotic. I chalk this up partly to the fact that "Angelikson" doesn't know shit about music production)

The credits on this album are all over the place. For breaking news: "Programming and Finisher: Teddy Riley" - What the hell is a Finisher?

Riley's ego has swollen beyond the realms of comprehension.

 

[Pentum]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I guess a Finisher is what Teddy claimed he was in this project. He came at the end and "finished" it. Bleh.

 

[Dorian]

fin·ish (fnsh)
v. fin·ished, fin·ish·ing, fin·ish·es
v.tr.
1. To arrive at or attain the end of: finish a race.
2. To bring to an end; terminate: finished cleaning the room.
3. To consume all of; use up: finish a pie.
4. To bring to a desired or required state: finish a painting. See Synonyms at complete.
5. To give (wood, for example) a desired or particular surface texture.
6. To destroy; kill: finished the injured horse with a bullet.
7. To bring about the ruin of: The stock market crash finished many speculators.
v.intr.
1. To come to an end; stop.
2. To reach the end of a task, course, or relationship.
n.
1. The final part; the conclusion: racers neck-and-neck at the finish.
2. The reason for one's ruin; downfall.
3. Something that completes, concludes, or perfects, especially:
a. The last treatment or coating of a surface: applied a shellac finish to the cabinet.
b. The surface texture produced by such a treatment or coating.
c. A material used in surfacing or finishing.
4. Completeness, refinement, or smoothness of execution; polish.
5. The flavor left in the mouth after wine has been swallowed.

lol

 

[adamschoales]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

And yet this was the only track he is credited as the finisher on. Also... those Malachi comparison's from a couple posts above... yeah, that's creepy.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

@Aniram, I'm curious. Do you find the vocals on Breaking News enjoyable? Or, do you find the beats and melody of Breaking News enjoyable?

Like the song or not, your standing on the controversy aside, it's fair to say the quality of vocals on Breaking News one of the worst in this album. The tone of voice and the phrasing are out of Michael's characteristics.

I understand how people could enjoy Breaking News. It's a danceable track. But, to say the vocals enjoyable? I'm not sure.

Again, where's the proof to support this as a fact? I haven't seen many people state that the tone and phrasing are out of "Michael's characteristics" outside of this thread. To add to that, how can so many people become convinced over this one song, that it's Michael, if the tone of voice and phrasing is so bad?

It's your opinion that those things are an issue on the record, but there's not much to say that everyone feels that way, or if that's even the case.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Again, where's the proof to support this as a fact? I haven't seen many people state that the tone and phrasing are out of "Michael's characteristics" outside of this thread. To add to that, how can so many people become convinced over this one song, that it's Michael, if the tone of voice and phrasing is so bad?

It's your opinion that those things are an issue on the record, but there's not much to say that everyone feels that way, or if that's even the case.

Where did I say my opinion is a fact? I have never ever stated my opinon as fact. If you think my opinon is not fair, then you can explain why the tone of voice and phrasing are consistent with Michael's standard.

Also, there are also many people become convinced that Breaking News is not Michael. Just becasue many people believe the song is Michael doesn't make the tone of voice and phrasing of the song good.

I'm not even trying to discredit Aniram. I'm just curious to see whether he enjoys the vocals or the beats and melody about the song. Because for me personally, I enjoy the intro of the song. I like the beats. But, the vocals are a turn off for me.

Even the strongest supporters of the Cascio tracks would admit the quality of the vocals is not up to Michael's standard. One can enjoy the vocals, but it doesn't mean the quality of vocal is stellar. For instance, I enjoy Britney Spear's Toxic and some 90's songs from Take That and Spice Girls, but I don't think the quality of their songs are good. Also, I eat at McDonald's but I don't think the quality of food is great there.

 

[adamschoales]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Not to call anyone out, but regardless of whether its michael or not you DO have to admit the vocal quality of the Cascio tracks differs a GREAT DEAL from the other tracks on the album. It very well may still be michael but it DOES sound different. There is no denying that.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Where did I say my opinion is a fact? I have never ever stated my opinon as fact. If you think my opinon is not fair, then you can explain why the tone of voice and phrasing are consistent with Michael's standard.

Also, there are also many people become convinced that Breaking News is not Michael. Just becasue many people believe the song is Michael doesn't make the tone of voice and phrasing of the song good.

I'm not even trying to discredit Aniram. I'm just curious to see whether he enjoys the vocals or the beats and melody about the song. Because for me personally, I enjoy the intro of the song. I like the beats. But, the vocals are a turn off for me.

Even the strongest supporters of the Cascio tracks would admit the quality of the vocals is not up to Michael's standard. One can enjoy the vocals, but it doesn't mean the quality of vocal is stellar. For instance, I enjoy Britney Spear's Toxic and some 90's songs from Take That and Spice Girls, but I don't think the quality of their songs are good. Also, I eat at McDonald's but I don't think the quality of food is great there.

You're right, 100% correct in fact, and for that reason, I wouldn't go around saying the vocals on Breaking News is so great and is the best produced song by Michael or any other artist, and how I can't believe people don't think it's Michael. Vice versa, I wouldn't go around saying the vocals are so bad and question why people enjoy them, and then question whether they even enjoy the vocals in the first place as opposed to the beat of the song. It just seems some of us seem to be having a time pushing our opinion's onto others, despite their being nothing substantial to support their claims as anything more than subjective reasoning. (This isn't directed to you in general.)

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

When I say I enjoy the vocals, I mean I enjoy the vocals. I also enjoy the beat, yes, I enjoy the entire song. But in my post I was referring to the vocals being enjoyable.

And you ask what I find enjoyable about them? I just don't see what's wrong with them aside from being chopped in places, I think they are pretty good quality. And I think it's a good song, I guess?

I have never been a fan of Malachi's music. My favorite song by him is Tell It Like It Is, I guess, if I have one, but I haven't listened to it more than ten times. Breaking News, however, has been listened to at least 40-50 times.

So I guess, if it's Malachi, he suddenly learned how to create good pop music instead of the not-so-good attempt at it with his music(in my opinion). That tells me Malachi probably didn't write this music... And a lot of the 'doubters' agree with that but also push the comparison videos saying that Malachi uses the same note patterns? If he didn't write this music, which I doubt he did(being a listener of Malachi myself), he didn't choose what notes would be sang in these songs?

Same with Stay, I have never heard such a beautiful and intricate song from Malachi, so that leads me to believe he didn't write the song. Also, on top of that, I hear Michael, so there's double reason for me to believe Malachi had nothing to do with these tracks. Same with All I Need, Keep Your Head Up, and Monster.

Hope my post made sense, I'm very tired, had another long work day. Hope everyone is doing well. Glad to see the debate is remaining pretty pleasant and real discussion is taking place.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You're right, 100% correct in fact, and for that reason, I wouldn't go around saying the vocals on Breaking News is so great and is the best produced song by Michael or any other artist, and how I can't believe people don't think it's Michael. Vice versa, I wouldn't go around saying the vocals are so bad and question why people enjoy them, and then question whether they even enjoy the vocals in the first place as opposed to the beat of the song. It just seems some of us seem to be having a time pushing our opinion's onto others, despite their being nothing substantial to support their claims as anything more than subjective reasoning. (This isn't directed to you in general.)

Not directed to you either. I can't speak for others, but I don't even attempt to push my opinions onto others. I honestly don't care how others think anymore. I just want to have a discussion and learn from others. I see no harm in asking why people enjoy the vocals. This is part of having a discussion. I want to know what others see that I don't. May be I miss something.

 

[if.it.aint.broke.break.it]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I don't mind Breaking News as such - it's got a cool beat and decent-ish vocals, but what bothers me is what I hear, shouldn't be on a Michael Jackson posthumous record. But it's not my first choice for what is being passed as what it is when it isn't.

That's the only thing wrong with it.

 

[larry141094]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

To this day, I still have not listened to Breaking News, Keep Your Head Up, or Monster in full.

Whether it is him or not, they just sound plain bad... and Michael songs never sound bad. I have my opinions, but do they even matter at this point? The general public think all the songs sound like Michael.

I was waiting for someone to say EXACTLY that, as i said in an earlier post, SOME fans seem to think Michael can't make bad or mediocre records... well your obviously mistaken, Michael is not GOD, he is infact human, hence he makes mistakes.

If you can't accept that, then you can't accept that these tracks are Michael.

Now i want BUMPER or someone who doesn't believe it's Michael to answer these questions with LOGIC and REASONING ONLY, opinion is incorrect, feelings and senses are also incorrect, we must simply think this through logically.

1. If the tracks are NOT Michael, why on earth have the Jackson's not done anything about it?

2. If the tracks are NOT Michael, why does there seem to be people saying it IS him (10 Engineers who worked with Michael, Janet Jackson has not supported her family's "claims" in subsequent interviews)

3. If the tracks are NOT Michael then why did 2 Musicologists confirm it was (if you can't prove that's a lie, then it must be true)

4. If the tracks are NOT Michael then why are there more people associated with Michael saying it is him?

When i first hear BN, i was furious, i honestly thought that i had been played, i spammed MJJB until my fingers were numb.

When i had cooled down i decided to think about the situation logically with reason, and those were the 4 questions i asked myself, this is how i came to ultimate truth...

My answer to the first question was simple, The Jackson's haven't done anything because it's early days and things can be changed.
When the album was released i re answered the question, The Jackson's haven't done anything because they are waiting on the Murray Pre-Trial to end and they are gearing up their own legal team.
It soon became apparent that was wrong, so i continued, The Jackson's haven't done anything because they can't do anything.

This is the answer i finished on, i simply got to my answer by ridiculing my original 3rd answer which was "The Jackson's haven't done anything because they don't want to do anything"

The way to ridicule a statement is as follows...

1. Why would the Jackson's not want to do anything about fake MJ songs on the album?
A. The Jackson's don't actually believe that the songs are fake, and will not therefor pursue charges.

2. Is it possible that this answer is wrong? If so Why/Why not?
A. Yes it is possible that this answer is wrong because the Jackson's lawyer is wanting to take actions on the Jackson's behalf

3. Is this explanation enough to disregard the whole argument?
A. No

4. Is there a counter point for this argument?
A. Yes, The Jackson's Lawyer does not speak for the Jackson's moral interests, only their legal interests

5. If the Jackson's believe the songs are real and continue with their advocation against the tracks, what are the outcomes of this?
A. Weak album sales (Already a proven factor) hate and friction within the fan-base (Already a proven factor) friction between Sony and the Jackson's (Not yet proven but a strong possibility).

6. Question the original question
A. The Jackson's want to protect Michael and his legacy, so why would they create this trouble if it wasn't true?

7. Form a finalised answer with all of the above taken into account.
A. The Jackson's haven't done anything (the current situation) because they can't (the changed section does not clash with any of the issues brought up).

I did this with each of the questions, and from there i continued with more questions, there is a pattern emerging, i have found that the answers lead to the songs either being MJ with over editing and bad quality (EG: his voice may not have been up to scratch) or that the songs are real, but the recordings were of such bad quality that someone filled parts for Michael, which in essence makes it a duet record.

For those who think their hearing is always right then that leads me to believe that BOJ and HT are both fake and sung by Jason Malachi

 

[MJultimatemusiclegen]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I was waiting for someone to say EXACTLY that, as i said in an earlier post, SOME fans seem to think Michael can't make bad or mediocre records... well your obviously mistaken, Michael is not GOD, he is infact human, hence he makes mistakes.

If you can't accept that, then you can't accept that these tracks are Michael.

Now i want BUMPER or someone who doesn't believe it's Michael to answer these questions with LOGIC and REASONING ONLY, opinion is incorrect, feelings and senses are also incorrect, we must simply think this through logically.

1. If the tracks are NOT Michael, why on earth have the Jackson's not done anything about it?

2. If the tracks are NOT Michael, why does there seem to be people saying it IS him (10 Engineers who worked with Michael, Janet Jackson has not supported her family's "claims" in subsequent interviews)

3. If the tracks are NOT Michael then why did 2 Musicologists confirm it was (if you can't prove that's a lie, then it must be true)

4. If the tracks are NOT Michael then why are there more people associated with Michael saying it is him?

When i first hear BN, i was furious, i honestly thought that i had been played, i spammed MJJB until my fingers were numb.

When i had cooled down i decided to think about the situation logically with reason, and those were the 4 questions i asked myself, this is how i came to ultimate truth...

My answer to the first question was simple, The Jackson's haven't done anything because it's early days and things can be changed.
When the album was released i re answered the question, The Jackson's haven't done anything because they are waiting on the Murray Pre-Trial to end and they are gearing up their own legal team.
It soon became apparent that was wrong, so i continued, The Jackson's haven't done anything because they can't do anything.

This is the answer i finished on, i simply got to my answer by ridiculing my original 3rd answer which was "The Jackson's haven't done anything because they don't want to do anything"

The way to ridicule a statement is as follows...

1. Why would the Jackson's not want to do anything about fake MJ songs on the album?
A. The Jackson's don't actually believe that the songs are fake, and will not therefor pursue charges.

2. Is it possible that this answer is wrong? If so Why/Why not?
A. Yes it is possible that this answer is wrong because the Jackson's lawyer is wanting to take actions on the Jackson's behalf

3. Is this explanation enough to disregard the whole argument?
A. No

4. Is there a counter point for this argument?
A. Yes, The Jackson's Lawyer does not speak for the Jackson's moral interests, only their legal interests

5. If the Jackson's believe the songs are real and continue with their advocation against the tracks, what are the outcomes of this?
A. Weak album sales (Already a proven factor) hate and friction within the fan-base (Already a proven factor) friction between Sony and the Jackson's (Not yet proven but a strong possibility).

6. Question the original question
A. The Jackson's want to protect Michael and his legacy, so why would they create this trouble if it wasn't true?

7. Form a finalised answer with all of the above taken into account.
A. The Jackson's haven't done anything (the current situation) because they can't (the changed section does not clash with any of the issues brought up).

I did this with each of the questions, and from there i continued with more questions, there is a pattern emerging, i have found that the answers lead to the songs either being MJ with over editing and bad quality (EG: his voice may not have been up to scratch) or that the songs are real, but the recordings were of such bad quality that someone filled parts for Michael, which in essence makes it a duet record.

For those who think their hearing is always right then that leads me to believe that BOJ and HT are both fake and sung by Jason Malachi

What you said in brackets in question number 3 of your first set makes your whole post invalid, what a rediculous thing to say.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I was waiting for someone to say EXACTLY that, as i said in an earlier post, SOME fans seem to think Michael can't make bad or mediocre records... well your obviously mistaken, Michael is not GOD, he is infact human, hence he makes mistakes.

If you can't accept that, then you can't accept that these tracks are Michael.

Now i want BUMPER or someone who doesn't believe it's Michael to answer these questions with LOGIC and REASONING ONLY, opinion is incorrect, feelings and senses are also incorrect, we must simply think this through logically.

1. If the tracks are NOT Michael, why on earth have the Jackson's not done anything about it?

2. If the tracks are NOT Michael, why does there seem to be people saying it IS him (10 Engineers who worked with Michael, Janet Jackson has not supported her family's "claims" in subsequent interviews)

3. If the tracks are NOT Michael then why did 2 Musicologists confirm it was (if you can't prove that's a lie, then it must be true)

4. If the tracks are NOT Michael then why are there more people associated with Michael saying it is him?

When i first hear BN, i was furious, i honestly thought that i had been played, i spammed MJJB until my fingers were numb.

When i had cooled down i decided to think about the situation logically with reason, and those were the 4 questions i asked myself, this is how i came to ultimate truth...

My answer to the first question was simple, The Jackson's haven't done anything because it's early days and things can be changed.
When the album was released i re answered the question, The Jackson's haven't done anything because they are waiting on the Murray Pre-Trial to end and they are gearing up their own legal team.
It soon became apparent that was wrong, so i continued, The Jackson's haven't done anything because they can't do anything.

This is the answer i finished on, i simply got to my answer by ridiculing my original 3rd answer which was "The Jackson's haven't done anything because they don't want to do anything"

The way to ridicule a statement is as follows...

1. Why would the Jackson's not want to do anything about fake MJ songs on the album?
A. The Jackson's don't actually believe that the songs are fake, and will not therefor pursue charges.

2. Is it possible that this answer is wrong? If so Why/Why not?
A. Yes it is possible that this answer is wrong because the Jackson's lawyer is wanting to take actions on the Jackson's behalf

3. Is this explanation enough to disregard the whole argument?
A. No

4. Is there a counter point for this argument?
A. Yes, The Jackson's Lawyer does not speak for the Jackson's moral interests, only their legal interests

5. If the Jackson's believe the songs are real and continue with their advocation against the tracks, what are the outcomes of this?
A. Weak album sales (Already a proven factor) hate and friction within the fan-base (Already a proven factor) friction between Sony and the Jackson's (Not yet proven but a strong possibility).

6. Question the original question
A. The Jackson's want to protect Michael and his legacy, so why would they create this trouble if it wasn't true?

7. Form a finalised answer with all of the above taken into account.
A. The Jackson's haven't done anything (the current situation) because they can't (the changed section does not clash with any of the issues brought up).

I did this with each of the questions, and from there i continued with more questions, there is a pattern emerging, i have found that the answers lead to the songs either being MJ with over editing and bad quality (EG: his voice may not have been up to scratch) or that the songs are real, but the recordings were of such bad quality that someone filled parts for Michael, which in essence makes it a duet record.

For those who think their hearing is always right then that leads me to believe that BOJ and HT are both fake and sung by Jason Malachi

Before I answer your questions, as you requested, answer few of my questions

-Do you believe the Japanese government's official statement that the radiation from the nuclear plant's explosion is not dangerous at this stage for the population (would you be at ease living in the surroundings) or do you believe your common sense which probably questions the government's statement? (Can you prove it? Can you go on trial? What would be the outcome?)

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Bumper, when I read larry's post, I didn't think of him ignoring that half of the post where Jason says, 'It's not MJ.'

He makes the point that Jason is bringing attention to the subject, and if he was vocalist he wouldn't be encouraging people to investigate it, you see? That makes sense, right? If he was the impostor, why would he tell people that it's not MJ on the tracks and encourage them to look into it more? That tells us that he probably didn't fake these songs, otherwise he'd encourage the official story!

That's the point larry was making, not that Jason denies it, but that he also brings more focus to the subject by saying he doesn't think MJ is on the tracks. That is very interesting!

Jason could just be one of the doubters as well and that doesn't mean he's right.

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

My mistake. KYHU is not produced by Riley (which I guess makes sense... listening again michael's vocals aren't QUITE as bad as the other cascio tracks... though they're still a bit robotic. I chalk this up partly to the fact that "Angelikson" doesn't know shit about music production)

The credits on this album are all over the place. For breaking news: "Programming and Finisher: Teddy Riley" - What the hell is a Finisher?

Riley's ego has swollen beyond the realms of comprehension.

Like in a movie, a finisher is someone who restores/completes/perfects original rough material into sth that meets certain quality standards required or requested for an official release, thus giving a finishing touch to the work or any part of it.

This explains well that Teddy Riley created songs out of the rough vocals and there was much cleaning/processing with modern technology to make the vocals fit to the newly produced music.

The result is a question of taste. Some tend to believe in controversies for various reasons, others can actually listen to the tracks and recognizing MJ as the main vocalist without any problem.


O P Q R S T are the winners in the end.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Bumper, when I read larry's post, I didn't think of him ignoring that half of the post where Jason says, 'It's not MJ.'

He makes the point that Jason is bringing attention to the subject, and if he was vocalist he wouldn't be encouraging people to investigate it, you see? That makes sense, right? If he was the impostor, why would he tell people that it's not MJ on the tracks and encourage them to look into it more? That tells us that he probably didn't fake these songs, otherwise he'd encourage the official story!

That's the point larry was making, not that Jason denies it, but that he also brings more focus to the subject by saying he doesn't think MJ is on the tracks. That is very interesting!

Jason could just be one of the doubters as well and that doesn't mean he's right.

What you seem not to get it, we doubters do not care if it is Jason or another impostor. What we do care about is that on those tracks we don't hear Michael. So far Jason seems to be the best candidate, but if it's another impostor it wouldn't change a slightest thing to the situation.

 

[adamschoales]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Again, the quesiton was more regarding his credit as "finisher" on ONE TRACK rather than all of them (what about Breaking News makes him "finisher"), not really a question of the title (which isn't REALLY a title...)

it was also a subtle jab at the fact the fact that he could have arguably FINISHED his career with these blunders

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I think it's because he had the most finalization and finishing in the process of Breaking News. He took the song and made it into what it is based on Michael's acapella, if I'm not mistaken. Monster was more finished when he worked on it and he didn't work on KYHU.

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

What you seem not to get it, we doubters do not care if it is Jason or another impostor. What we do care about is that on those tracks we don't hear Michael. So far Jason seems to be the best candidate, but if it's another impostor it wouldn't change a slightest thing to the situation.

If you can't even be sure it would be Jason, how can you be sure at all it's not MJ in the end?



@adamschoales: I don't find it realistic to say Teddy Riley's career would be finished if some people don't like the result of how the tracks were finished. It's all a matter of taste. Doesn't affect his career, these are MJ tunes loved by many people. It's not like all of the fans think they would be fake. It's even pretty hard to tell how many doubters actually exist.

When I look at the German forums there were only a few of those complaints. Very interesting, isn't it? Big difference to the most popular MJ forums. It's also logical that people that want to complain are becoming ACTIVE on the most popular forums whereas people that have nothing to complain about will just remain silent and won't post anything.

And if there's an administrator of a forum that believes into a controversy, it's also logical that more people will read about it as administrators often feel some kind of responsibility to inform other people of possible "news" independent whether it's true or not.
Examples: MJFrance, MJHideOut etc.

 

[Pentum]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I'm going to pretend these songs are MJ for a week. Wish me good luck!

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

If you can't even be sure it would be Jason, how can you be sure at all it's not MJ in the end?

Uh, because of what our ears hear?

Again, as we've stated plenty of times...Who cares WHO is singing on the tracks? All that matters is that it's not Mike..It may not be Jason, but it sure as hell sounds like him, and NOT Michael...It's not as if Jason denying his participation on these songs changes what I hear!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

If you can't even be sure it would be Jason, how can you be sure at all it's not MJ in the end?

Korgnex, nothing personal against you, but this question of yours, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Where is the logic? Where is the link? I just don't get it!

For God's sake, if I don't hear MJ on those tracks, I clearly hear someone else. I don't know that someone else, I know Michael. So why should I even bother knowing Jason's voice? I don't care about Jason. I don't care about impostors. I can hear if it is Michael or not, but it doesn't mean that I can hear if it's Jason or not.

Anyway, according to all the comparisons on the net, Jason's vocals do seem to be the most similar to the Cascio tracks, more than Michael's. Again, I am not a Jason's fan, I am a MJ's fan!

So am I sure if it is Jason? No, but for the moment I believe it is him as the voice is clearly extremely similar.

Am I sure if it is not Michael? Yes.

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Again, I am not a Jason's fan, I am an Arklove fan!

:naughty: