Michael - The Great Album Debate

Billyjeanplxiv

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,530
Points
38
Korgnex is lurking. Hello Sir

Hello Love is Magical

Hello Ivy The Logical

...i watched Making of Michael last night. I enjoy every part....BUT did you ever notice how the said Michael wanted 50 Cent here. Its in his notes. Michael wanted 50 on Monster....

SO. If there is a note saying 50 Cent should go here in Monster...what would that prove. That he knew about the songs....hmm
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Kidding aside, I wasn't angry at all.

you sounded angry and I don't do angry, not anymore. I have absolutely no desire to fight about this topic at all.

So again we are shifting from the discussed topic to something that is unnecessary.

sorry but how necessary was it to post the computer being thrown out picture, writing I'm calm 3 - 4 times, and the current multiple posts about "doubters" being barbaric?

Then the forensic analysis cannot be qualified as a scientific test at all. In science nothing can be leading. if it's leading, then it means that it isn't conclusive.

Asking and trying to answer the question "Is it Michael?" should be enough and not leading in a scientific test. If it's not Michael the test should be able to point it out without the need of Malachi comparison.

for example

Billie Jean is a legit song when compared it to Thriller another legit song you would expect to see a high match - let's say 95 -99% range.

However

when you compare Billie Jean a legit song to a Cascio song which we assume an imposter you would expect to see a low match - let's say 60-70%.

That should be enough to conclude that the vocals aren't Michael's or at least that there's a high level of uncertainty about the vocals (30-40%)

If you think when compared Billie Jean a legit song to a Cascio song you would get a high match like 90-99%, it would mean
- it's Michael or
- Imposter can mimic Michael perfectly and fool the testing

so even if you add Malachi to the mix and compare a Malachi song to Billie Jean and get again a 90-95% match

then the result would be inconclusive. Malachi would be the best impersonator and these songs would never be proven one way or another.

edited to add: I also don't understand why you think testing Malachi vocals is required. for years I have read you all write how the differences were obvious from pitch to vibrato to pronunciation. If the differences are that obvious, the legit vocals - cascio vocals comparison should come up with a low match result due to obvious differences.

the only time that would require to add Malachi would be if actually it's really really close there's very minor and more subtle differences and that would require a more in depth analysis.

so which one is it?
 

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
add dramatic to that as well.

Kidding aside : You are overly dramatic if you think something I said about Bumper's latest post which had nothing to do with his doubter position btw, applies to you doubters all. (why? why you take it personally? aren't you different and separate individuals or are you connected to each other at the hip that one thing said to another you feel it too? ) furthermore I'm quite curious of how you came to "illogical, unreasonable, negative and barbaric" from a simple "calm down you sound angry". or why do you have this need to jump into other people's discussions especially after it's over and both parties chose to ignore each other and love to restart it all over again. I thought you didn't like the main point of "who cares who did it and who knew these songs are fake" to be lost between "not important" side topics yet you are the ones that love to post tens of no purpose posts such as "I am calm" x4.

I'll repeat this again - I know what I said very well and I know what I didn't say very well too.

Why you assume that every post that people write here are aimming at you? Take a look to what you just wrote. I'm not sure who's more dramatic here. You don't like me asking you to stop thinking people are targeting you. You called that an order. Yet, you have no problem ordering people to calm down. You don't like people to tell you "hey ivy. calm down. stop thinking others are aimming at you." Yet, you think it's not equally annoying for others to hear "calm down. be civil" from you. Please. No one is angry here. It's what this discussion always sound.

Take a look to what you just wrote again. Did you say "I am the ones that love to post tens of no purpose posts?" Oh good lord. It seems you are the one who take things way more personally. I can't say every one of my posts are insightful. But, I don't remember ever posting that many "no purpose" posts. Define "purposeful" post to me please. Is posting the same gif a million times purposeful? Is posting "good job Estate" a million times purposeful? You are entering a dangerous territory if you start catergorizing people's post into purposeful and no-purpose.

Yes, Bumper and I are different individuals. However, on certain issues, I can relate to him. Our thinkings on certain matters are within the same wavelength. I'm not afraid to say I'm more empathatic toward him. This is human nature. That doesn't mean we are "connected at hip". Honestly, it surprises me that you would say something like this. Saying such thing is condescending. This is a public discussion. I'm not the first one who jumped into other people's discussion. If you want to keep the conversation between you and Bumpy, then carry it to PM.

It's not just you who want to be understood. We all want to be understood. I'm sure you know what you said and didn't say very well. But, do you understand, or attempt to understand, what other people said as well? Like Bumpy said, you tend to reply people by posting a bunch of legal papers and other cases, as if you can't wait to "correct" other people.

Again, no one is aimming at you or rejecting you. It really is tiring that we have to stress this point over and over.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Why you assume that every post that people write here are aimming at you?

simple question: can you look me in the face and say that posts you had (the gif and funny how post) had nothing to do with my exchange with bumper?

if it didn't, I'll apologize to you for misunderstanding

if it did, you'll admit that those posts were aimed at me & latest exchange.

edited to add: I didn't say you personally or alone posted no purpose posts. I wrote "you are the ones " - plural - which is clearly a general statement and the example "I am calm" 4 times is what Bumper posted not you. So you are taking it personally on no basis. perhaps you should take your own advice and not take everything personally.

and you can also see my next post to Bumper mentioning the same thing. I just think people shouldn't complain about the "topic shifting to unnecessary stuff" when themselves also participate in off topic posting.
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,726
Points
63
Korgnex is lurking. Hello Sir

Hello Love is Magical

Hello Ivy The Logical

...i watched Making of Michael last night. I enjoy every part....BUT did you ever notice how the said Michael wanted 50 Cent here. Its in his notes. Michael wanted 50 on Monster....

SO. If there is a note saying 50 Cent should go here in Monster...what would that prove. That he knew about the songs....hmm

Funny how they showed lots of notes except that one.

With regardings to falsifying the voice, I would say it is a bit of a coincidence that they would create a fake voice that happens to share every vocal trait with Jason Cupeta and none with Mj. That's a real stretch.

Whatever anyone believes, that is a reality. None of Mj's trademarks are present in these songs. Aspects which are identical to those of JC are. Almost two years down the line there is still no explanation for this beyond the obvious.
 
Last edited:

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
simple question: can you look me in the face and say that posts you had (the gif and funny how post) had nothing to do with my exchange with bumper?

if it didn't, I'll apologize to you for misunderstanding

if it did, you'll admit that I was right when I said those posts were aimed at me & latest exchange.

The hulk gif is not posted by me, but by Arky. Why I know? Becasue I still don't know how to post gif up to now.

Knowing Arky, I'm sure she wants to make fun of Bumpy, than attack you. That's why she posted the Hulk - Bumpy is ugly like an agry Hulk.

The :doh: funny face is my reaction at your "calm down and be civil" order, not at you personally. Again, it's just very annoying to hear "calm down. don't be angry" from you again and again. Why? Because no one wants to be portrayed as someone we are not. Again, I have never been angry at you. I don't know what I need to do here to show you I have nothing against you personally.

The funny how post is also related to the annoyance of that same "see. you don't need to be angry" from you. What are you trying to say? To you, it's simple. You even think it's polite to ask people to stop being angry. However, it starts to sound very condescending. Because you make it sound like we are all a bunch of angry indivduals.

I'm not an angry person. To me, it's important to control one's anger. We need citizens who can manage their anger in order to have a stable society. Being able to control one's angry emotion is a sign of rational thinking. On the contrary, failing to do that is a sign of irrationality.

You think Bumpy's "I'm calm with multiple exclamation marks" an angry post towards you. But, do you think it also can be an extra effort from him to tell you that he's not angry. Because simply saying "I'm not angry" is not enough to convince you that we are not.

So, I can look at you in your face and tell you that none of the gif, funny face and "funny how" posts are aiming at you personally, but at your constant annoying request to ask people to stop being angry.
 

Arklove

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
18,070
Points
83
Location
Canada
Yes, Lovey, you were right, I was making fun of Bumpy :D

It was just an attempt to lighten the mood...I guess it didn't work...

It's not my nature to attack people...
 

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
edited to add: I didn't say you personally or alone posted no purpose posts. I wrote "you are the ones " - plural - which is clearly a general statement and the example "I am calm" 4 times is what Bumper posted not you. So you are taking it personally on no basis. perhaps you should take your own advice and not take everything personally.

and you can also see my next post to Bumper mentioning the same thing. I just think people shouldn't complain about the "topic shifting to unnecessary stuff" when themselves also participate in off topic posting.

First, I don't think I've posted that many "no purpose" posts. Again, not every one of my posts are insightful. But, I only post whenever I have things to say.

Second, it's still not nice to generalize me into the "no purpose" posters category. Does it matter I'm the only one or one of the many posters who have posted many "no purpose" posts? Isn't it equally rude to tell people that?

No purpose posts! Wow... simply wow... I get to be careful now; for, I'm afraid I may have committed the mistake of writing some no purpose posts again.
 
B

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
you sounded angry and I don't do angry, not anymore. I have absolutely no desire to fight about this topic at all.

Duh, me neither.



sorry but how necessary was it to post the computer being thrown out picture, writing I'm calm 3 - 4 times, and the current multiple posts about "doubters" being barbaric?

Yes, it was necessary.



Asking and trying to answer the question "Is it Michael?" should be enough and not leading in a scientific test. If it's not Michael the test should be able to point it out without the need of Malachi comparison.

Wrong, ask any scientist how they conduct an objective and scientifically reliable research.
 
Last edited:

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
So, I can look at you in your face and tell you that none of the gif, funny face and "funny how" posts are aiming at you personally, but at your constant annoying request to ask people to stop being angry.

I didn't take it "personally" but I also knew that all of those were about the latest exchange happening. You were sub-mentioning me without me mentioning me. All that doh, I know right, aw lawd etc. was obvious. sub posting and sub tweeting is considered rude. At least quote me when you have problems with me or don't act like those posts weren't about me and what I posted.

and constant request? just because I said it to you some days ago and bumper just now it became a constant request?

Again, I have never been angry at you. I don't know what I need to do here to show you I have nothing against you personally.

You think Bumpy's "I'm calm with multiple exclamation marks" an angry post towards you. But, do you think it also can be an extra effort from him to tell you that he's not angry. Because simply saying "I'm not angry" is not enough to convince you that we are not.

The tone and word selection is important when you want to convince people of something. Bumper's post that had a million questions and exclamation marks sounded angry, so did his accompanying big fonted bolded statement with multiple exclamation marks. A simple "ivy you are mistaken I'm absolutely calm :) " written in a normal font would be a lot more effective to demonstrate he's calm then "I AM CALM !!!" which is equal to shouting.

And I had issues with your tone based on to word selections such as "excuse me?" (which I quoted and pointed out) and the use of "stop" which can sound like an order (which I again pointed out). You also replied to me saying that you were frustrated which is closely related to being angry.

It's all about how you say what you say and I'm sorry but shouting, exclamation marks, a lot of questions and certain word selections does make it seem like you - generally speaking - have an anger or unhappiness (whatever you want to call it) that you love to send it my way.


edited to add:

No purpose posts! Wow... simply wow... I get to be careful now; for, I'm afraid I may have committed the mistake of writing some no purpose posts again.

again you are twisting what I said. Allow me to make it very clear. Bumper in this thread complained at least 2 times in the last 2 days that the discussion was shifting to unnecessary topics. The latest one was in regard to my post saying him to calm down. He classified it as "shifting the topic". I'm saying that you can't make that criticism and then have the last 2 pages filled with "doh", "I know right", "I am calm", "I am calm", "I am calm", "aw lawd", "shut up", "barbaric", "hulk", "I'm not barbaric". Is it clear now? And what did those achieve? Nothing at all hence they served no purpose. This current post / exchange is at least a discussion of something.

and you really shouldn't be this much surprised about this really. You know that people complained about the monkey balls posted on this thread. Similarly I have all the right to complain about the off topic posts especially when this thread has a relevant discussion ongoing.
 
B

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
first of all i posted this

edited to add: I didn't say you personally or alone posted no purpose posts. I wrote "you are the ones " - plural - which is clearly a general statement and the example "i am calm" 4 times is what bumper posted not you. So you are taking it personally on no basis. Perhaps you should take your own advice and not take everything personally.

And you can also see my next post to bumper mentioning the same thing. I just think people shouldn't complain about the "topic shifting to unnecessary stuff" when themselves also participate in off topic posting.



I didn't take it "personally" but i also knew that all of those were about the latest exchange happening. You were sub-mentioning me without me mentioning me. All that doh, i know right, aw lawd etc. Was obvious. Sub posting and sub tweeting is considered rude. At least quote me when you have problems with me or don't act like those posts weren't about me and what i posted.

And constant request? Just because i said it to you some days ago and bumper just now it became a constant request?



The tone and word selection is important when you want to convince people of something. Bumper's post that had a million questions and exclamation marks sounded angry, so did his accompanying big fonted bolded statement with multiple exclamation marks. A simple "ivy you are mistaken i'm absolutely calm :) " written in a normal font would be a lot more effective to demonstrate he's calm then "i am calm !!!" which is equal to shouting.

And i called your tone angry based on to word selections such as "excuse me?" (which i quoted and pointed out) and the use of "stop" which can sound like an order (which i again pointed out). You also replied to me saying that you were frustrated which is closely related to being angry.

It's all about how you say what you say and i'm sorry but shouting, exclamation marks, a lot of questions and certain word selections does make it seem like you - generally speaking - have an anger or unhappiness (whatever you want to call it) that you love to send it my way.


But, I am calm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
Ivy, I said I was frustrated at the SITUATION, not at you. The situation being there were three highly manipulated songs released in the first Michael Jackson posthumous. I have already mentioned to you I was never angry at you. Somehow, it's still not enough. What else do you want? Starting my post by "excuse me" didn't mean I was angry, but more like I was surprised by what you said. When someone said something surprising to you, have you ever replied by saying "excuse me" first? I was surprised by you saying it's too late to shift focus. I thought there wasn't any new focus, so what's too late? It's the truth, even if you choose not to believe it. You know what. A lot of these perceived anger or unhappiness or frusturation you THINK people aim at you are truly your own imagination or incorrect interpretation of other people's intention.

What's the difference between me saying "stop thinking people are targeting you" and you saying "calm down. be civil." If I'm ordering you, aren't you also ordering others as well?

Speaking of bolded font (your interpretation of shouting), Bumpy is not the only one who ever used it. In fact, Korgnex's signature contains multiple color bolded fonts. Does it mean he's shouting every time he posts? Someone even told him that using multiple color bolded fonts won't make his points come acrossed better. Korgnex just said it's his way of posting. So, people pointed out to him. He explained it. So, people let it go.

Both Bumpy and I explained multiple times that we are not angray at you. Yet, you keep on picking people's post apart to point out to them why you think they are angry. Again, I don't know what else to do. Perhaps, people should refrain from using shouty capitals again.
 
B

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
Thank you for getting the thread back on track...But try not to be so angry while doing it :D

I mean, come on, it's not appreciated :D
e42b14a5_new_funny_gif_03.gif
 
B

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
Ivy, I said I was frustrated at the SITUATION, not at you. The situation being there were three highly manipulated songs released in the first Michael Jackson posthumous. I have already mentioned to you I was never angry at you. Somehow, it's still not enough. What else do you want? Starting my post by "excuse me" didn't mean I was angry, but more like I was surprised by what you said. When someone said something surprising to you, have you ever replied by saying "excuse me" first? I was surprised by you saying it's too late to shift focus. I thought there wasn't any new focus, so what's too late? It's the truth, even if you choose not to believe it. You know what. A lot of these perceived anger or unhappiness or frusturation you THINK people aim at you are truly your own imagination or incorrect interpretation of other people's intention.

What's the difference between me saying "stop thinking people are targeting you" and you saying "calm down. be civil." If I'm ordering you, aren't you also ordering others as well?

Speaking of bolded font (your interpretation of shouting), Bumpy is not the only one who ever used it. In fact, Korgnex's signature contains multiple color bolded fonts. Does it mean he's shouting every time he posts? Someone even told him that using multiple color bolded fonts won't make his points come acrossed better. Korgnex just said it's his way of posting. So, people pointed out to him. He explained it. So, people let it go.

Both Bumpy and I explained multiple times that we are not angray at you. Yet, you keep on picking people's post apart to point out to them why you think they are angry. Again, I don't know what else to do. Perhaps, people should refrain from using shouty capitals again.


You deserve some

28221lrg.jpg
 

144000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
10,312
Points
0
Location
united states
Ivy, my ability to cut and paste and specify certain things you said, and leave other stuff out, is hard, because i have impaired vision, so i will mention something you said, here, and respond to it. You said, one has to consider the difference between countries, and that Milli Vanilli's German accents were too great to reconcile with the absence of accents in 'their' recordings of singing.
One thing i have done all my life, is keep my ears glued practically inside of radios to listen to, and study the quirky things that can happen in songs. Believe me, there are plenty of people who have a thick accent from one country and are masters of being able to assume a brilliant American accent, while singing a song. And, of course, there are ears that are subjective. For a long time I didn't know that Elton John was British, until i was told so. To me, he sounded incredibly American on a lot of his songs. There are so many people who can't speak of lick of English, but are Brilliant at singing it, or writing it, or typing it on a computer, and there is much technology out there that allows for people to fake things in many unfathomable ways. If you got the money, you can find a way. The only thing you can't fake, is the exclusive magic.

And have you heard Mel Gibson, lately? To me, I'd never know he was from Australia, originally.
I'm guessing that some people, if they are from other countries and are in America long enough, can lose their 'accents', almost completely, to completely. But i'm guessing that there are some that can lose them without leaving their country.

*and now, for me to participate in some of the escapism going on in here, i will watch my favorite video about 'celebrating' fakery...and overexcited video editors....Genesis' "I Can't Dance".*
 
Last edited:

bluetopez

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
4,869
Points
0
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Well you need to account for the differences between countries. From the moment Milli Vanilli songs were released they were suspicion that they didn't sing. They had these heavy German accents when speaking and none while singing. Some said perhaps they were working to perfect their pronunciation for the recording. Plus in Europe it really didn't matter that much. There had been other lip syncing groups (Boney M , Technotronics, Black Box) , it didn't matter.

Arista who saw the success of Milli Vanilli wanted to release their albums in USA
, they got the rights, unknowingly and unsuspectingly assumed that they are singing , gave them the vocals credit, sold millions of albums and then woke up to a scandal. Well probably they realized something wasn't right as the time went on but I think they didn't have a clue when they put "vocals : rob &fab" on the album insert.

As for the record companies I don't think attending to recording sessions is a habit of them and in this instance they were just getting the US distribution rights.
I'm sorry but, I don't believe for a second Artista didn't know. How could they be paying so much attention to Milli Vanilli success over in Europe yet not in the fact that over there they knew they weren't the real singers. Come on! I not buying that for a second. So I guess it's best to agree to disagree. And I think they should make it a habit to check into any investment before so much is spent on image and promotion! Just saying!
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
I'm sorry but, I don't believe for a second Artista didn't know. How could they be paying so much attention to Milli Vanilli success over in Europe yet not in the fact that over there they knew they weren't the real singers. Come on! I not buying that for a second. So I guess it's best to agree to disagree. And I think they should make it a habit to check into any investment before so much is spent on image and promotion! Just saying!

I realized I had a typo. it should have been "there were suspicion" and not "they". I didn't mean record company, I meant general public.

No one knew that they didn't sing, it was just a suspicion, a suspicion that no one really cared about because using models as the face of a disco band was a common and acceptable practice since 70s. Plus there's nothing that also shows that they paid "so much attention" to Milli Vanilli. They knew it sold millions , they got the rights and released in USA which again sold millions.

Also don't forget this was 1988, no internet, no social networks, no cell phones, no google etc.. Information and communications was very very limited.

I remember as a kid thinking "why do they have a heavy accent while talking" and I remember a friend of mine saying "perhaps they study the song pronunciation just like we do in English class". That was it. We enjoyed the songs with no more further thought. and I'm pretty sure Arista didn't have any idea about what we discussed among ourselves.
 

WildStyle

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,754
Points
38
I have no idea why journalists aren't all over this. We need people with legit investigation skills on the case.

Edit: Actually I do know. They don't take the concerns seriously. If we could get just one (a good one) to take it seriously, maybe we could get some more info. I don't need any more info personally, it's all there in the songs. This is strictly about exposing the lie to everyone.
 
Last edited:

Paw

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
73
Points
0
Ok,people.Let’s change the mood and try a brand new theory.
When Paul Anka claimed This Is It was stolen from him,it was John McClain who called him and said, "Now we know why the song was so good ... it wasn't the type of Michael Jackson song that he could write."When controversy surfaced that some people suspected it was not Michael singing on Cascio tracks,we had John Branca and Howard Weitzman calling Jason Malachi’s manager to check.Where is Mr McClain?Are you OK,sir?
John McClain was at odds with Cascio brothers.Nobody wanted to let their disagreement go public.
 
Top