such communication needs to start with you - I mean the fans - willing to listen. fans aren't making themselves any favors by constantly rejecting whatever they are told.
yes things could have been better but as I said it's a give and take situation. You cannot expect to ask ask ask, attack, attack, attack, hate hate hate and then suddenly expect love back. Such approaches would only make you seem like an extreme fan and in the end it can result in Estate choosing the constantly complaining fans and focus on the more milder and more happier fans.
You could also argue the other way around: you cannot expect to release something like the 'Michael' album and then expect people not to become sceptical about future products. Look, I know there are people who have been dead-set against the Estate before these people even got to collect their first paycheck. But the majority of us who are now sceptical have only become so after releases like the 'Michael' album. It is not about being 'anti-Estate' for us at all, it is about simply wanting to see Michael's work treated with the care and respect it deserves.
well relatively a short answer from me. I believe I was clear that the conclusions (presented as speculations) aren't my main problem. My main problem is the accompanying attacks. If we are MJ fans and we look to 2005 trial and repeat "innocent until proven guilty" then I don't get the double standard of so quickly blaming other people and play judge,jury and executioner. In my mind a line gets crossed.
People (based on your previous posts, you seem to fall into this camp too) who have concluded that Tricky Stewart is responsible for this are alledging that he illegally used vocals he does not own on a remix. People who speculate that the Estate at some point had a hand in this 'duet' alledge that they made a bad creative decision. To me the former seems like a much more serious accusation to make.
And as I said previously, the post of you which I initially replied to
was about jumping to conclusions, not just about 'attacks'. But I see now that your problem is mainly the latter.
I did not cast anyone as "lunatics" so please don't make accusations. and by definition conspiracy is "A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design". If you claim Estate is involved and not admitting their involvement or making vague statements, that is by definition a claim of conspiracy.
The label 'conspiracy theorist' clearly has a very negative connotation. And I know you know this, as you preface your use of it with an apology for being blunt.
Again, going by your definition, how is saying that Tricky Stewart and/or Max Methods and/or Justin Bieber got together with the idea to illegally use Michael Jackson's vocals on a remix, and saying that they must have leaked the song out of anger for being turned down, for attention, or because they want to hurt Michael, not a conspiracy then? And what about your own comment about the fans who think the Estate might be involved?
To me it doesn't read like a group of people speculating and being clear that it's nothing more than a speculation, it reads like a deliberate attempt of "how can we tie this to the estate and act like it's factual so that we have a reason to hate them or promote a boycott of future releases".
"A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design"
As I said, I think this labeling simply detracts from a healthy debate.
I haven't seen any artist detailing every part of their work to the fans to be honest. Did Michael explain his song selections and why some made the list and some didn't? Did he notify us of all the remixes he made but then decided to not use? So I'm not sure how realistic this request of extensive details in statements from Estate are. At the end of the day they are a business aiming to make profit, they aren't going to share every business decision with the world. secondly as I pointed out on one hand you have a group that's unwilling to listen and calling everything Estate sends out as lies but also wanting detailed explanations. Quite oxymoron if you ask me.
Two things. Firstly, obviously things are not comparable to when Michael was still alive. Back then, just the fact that a product was released indicated that Michael supported it, and that's really all we needed to know. When you are representing an artist who is no longer here, it obviously becomes more important to explain your choices, as the artist himself is no longer here to give his blessing.
Secondly, when Michael was alive and false rumours about his creative decisions started to widely spread, his PR team did often squash them. Just as an example, look at the statement that was released when the rumours about Michael reuniting with his family started to gain steam back in 2008:
"My brothers and sisters have my full love and support, and we've certainly shared many great experiences, but at this time I have no plans to record or tour with them. I am now in the studio developing new and exciting projects that I look forward to sharing with my fans in concert soon."
Clear, unambiguous, and communicated to a wide audience, not just in an e-mail to fans. If the Estate had released a statement like this somewhere over the past couple of days, we would not be having this discussion now.
