I never said there is anything wrong with that belief. Such group, I put it on the non-believer side because it means that they don't believe MJ sings 100% the lead vocals and that they hear an impostor voice anyway.
As love is magical said, it doesn't matter if you hear 40% or 90 % of fake vocals, what matters is that they tried to deceive us with those fake vocals and lead us to believe that it is MJ when it's not.
By the way I explained this in my earlier post, but apparently you didn't read it or else you wouldn't quote me now and post what you posted. I said that the reason why some people sway from one group to another (the third group) is because they hear both vocals. So they're in between. But again, the fact that they hear one genuine one fake vocal doesn't put them into the believer's group as they believe there is a fake one anyway, which mostly pisses off the non-believers group.
I personally believe that the doubters who say that it's 100% not MJ are so disgusted by even 1% of fake lead vocal that they refuse to consider the songs as genuine.
It's like a hair in the soup. Some people will not see it, some people will see it and remove it and continue eating it and some people will refuse to eat a single further drop of the soup.
In the Cascio soup there are many hairs and I don't feel like eating it at all.
I think the issue is what people hear as the "other vocal". and as I have said multiple times before if you believe the other vocal to be credited on the album (such as Porte) there's nothing fake about it. and as the time goes on with the posthumous albums we will see more of the "additional vocals" to complete the songs.
I am sorry but behind your computer you assumed the opposite by stating it as a fact Bruce Swedien>fans without knowing if among fans there are also sound engineers, singers, and other experts who don't necessarily come to this forum. So it has nothing to do with fitting one's theory. You actually created your own theory with that inequation although there are many people who worked with Michael too and who are his fans but didn't voice themselves.
of course there could be experts among the fan but like you say we haven't seen them come to the forums or even write their expertise any where. so you want to believe there's one forensic musicologist out there that would say "it's not Michael". and I'm saying where is he?
You also know that most of my posts are written on the basic of law and business. stella asked me why fans concerns wasn't given equal importance. I looked to that from the perspective of a business person - they had these people that worked with michael, they had these expert reports so business wise and legal wise they didn't need to give importance to random fans that they didn't even know the names and credentials, when they had the experts on their side.
again look to the recent tribute concert event that the fans have been very vocal but the event still goes on. why? well they have a venue with 75,000 seats, If they sell it they would be achieving what they want - profits. and that's all that matters to them as a business.
the question assumes a perfect world where everyone is seen as equals and their opinions are equally valued. and I'm saying when you step out of a forum and go into the real world of business of law you'll see that doesn't always happen.
What if Seth Riggs contradicted Bruce? How would you equate?
I wouldn't. and I don't need to. If experts of the same caliber are disagreeing it would show me that it's a divided topic and either one is a possibility. I wouldn't act either opinion as a "fact".
and again to be clear I didn't say Swedien's opinion was the absolute truth. I just said that in reality (which includes law) he would have more weight than a random fan. Because in the cases of he said - he said, it's all about the credentials and the expertise of the person.
So regarding Bruce Swedien there is only ONE source which is the well-known Estate statement?
Bruce NEVER said something in public about it? Or to a newspaper? Or on the internet?
acceptance by silence.
legally you cannot use people's names on the statements without their consent. for example in my line I review books and the publishers ask me to sign a form to allow them publish my name as a reviewer. they can't do that without permission. and even if they do you can ask your name to be removed saying that you didn't give permission. As he never denied the statement or asked to be removed or asked for a redaction / correction, you can be sure that the people mentioned on the statement said what they are reported.
