Latest on MJJC

Michael 2010 album without fake songs?

10 years later they released the album without the fakes
without even admitting guilt in the slightest
 
Hot_Street said:
10 years later they released the album without the fakes
without even admitting guilt in the slightest
Click to expand...
Sony Music also removed these 3 fake songs from streaming services, such as Spotify and Apple Music.

According to reports, Sony Music stated at one point that they were duped by 2 producers (Eddie Cascio and James Porte) regarding these 3 fake songs.
 
I keep away from the re-release as I expect, some risk, that the mastering sound worse, more brick-walled etc.
But, can anyone confirm if that's the case?

(Also I don't mind just skipping the given tracks or removing some files...)
 
Maxym said:
I keep away from the re-release as I expect, some risk, that the mastering sound worse, more brick-walled etc.
But, can anyone confirm if that's the case?

(Also I don't mind just skipping the given tracks or removing some files...)
Click to expand...
The mastering is the same on streaming services at least. I don't see why the physical release would be different.
 
MJbr2 said:
The mastering is the same on streaming services at least. I don't see why the physical release would be different.
Click to expand...

Because it seems to be a principle to make things louder with re-releases... In example, on streaming services.
I'd like comparison with the 2010 CD.
 
Yeah, I don't buy re-releases because they always sound worse than the version I already have.

I'm not sure why anybody would want 2 copies of Michael.
 
MJbr2 said:
You're right, but their laziness would make them prefer to work the bare minimum and just slap the old copy/mastering on a new disc and profit from it once more.
Click to expand...

Well, if there's something the industry has never been lazy about, it's ruining existing works by "remastering"...
But it's true, if they did, they would have advertised it as "remastered" (hear it like you never heard it !).

Now, someone who had the occasion to compare and who I would tend to trust regarding audio stuff told me the MJ songs are the same as on original release, they only shortened some silence (I guess after fade out or such).
 
I may be in the minority or the only one, but I really don't mind the Casio tracks, genuine or not. They've always mostly sounded like Michael to me, and I think those are really cool and good songs.

We can't be sure that all vocals are genuine, but maybe enough of Michael's voice is on those tracks. Jason Malachi appears to be a genuinely wholesome Christian guy, so it looks more bizarre that he would have agreed to such a scam unless he was told those would just be background vocals.

And that takes me to the Britney Jean album by Britney Spears. Britney fans (for quite a large part) abhor that album with a passion for the same reason many MJ fans abhor the original Michael release. Background singer Myah Marie was accused and is still being accused of dubbing much of Britney's lead vocals on the record (up to 50%), but I love the album nonetheless. There was definitely a bit of dubbing at least, but that was not Myah's fault but the producers' and engineers'!
 
Last edited:
Maxym said:
Because it seems to be a principle to make things louder with re-releases... In example, on streaming services.
I'd like comparison with the 2010 CD.
Click to expand...
Mastering nowadays is way better than it was in the last decade. They've tapered off overall with any mastering; people are just making up scenarios to be mad about really.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Mastering nowadays is way better than it was in the last decade.
Click to expand...

If that's true, good news, now they just should release new music that is less that I actually want to listen to...
(Which is made difficult by the fact that the genres I used to listen to have ran out of steam... when it's not that the artists are dead... and I don't feel compelled to explore much more.)
 
Maxym said:
If that's true, good news, now they just should release new music that is less that I actually want to listen to...
(Which is made difficult by the fact that the genres I used to listen to have ran out of steam... when it's not that the artists are dead... and I don't feel compelled to explore much more.)
Click to expand...
No genre is dead, some are just out of the spotlight. You need to explore, why sit on your laurels anyway. That's how you end up with dementia, having a stagnant mind. Make those synapses work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssj
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Mastering nowadays is way better than it was in the last decade. They've tapered off overall with any mastering; people are just making up scenarios to be mad about really.
Click to expand...
"Way better" = applying a limiter to mask obvious compression so that users of streaming platforms won't notice the distortion while listening to their favorite songs.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
No genre is dead, some are just out of the spotlight. You need to explore, why sit on your laurels anyway. That's how you end up with dementia, having a stagnant mind. Make those synapses work.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't worry that way, I meant I've explored enough music, don't really get a hook from what is done nowadays, get diminishing satisfaction returns from music, so became very casual at it, and have other things to do... Like other things in life than music...

And, initially, I meant I can't really enjoy those "2020+ improved mastering techniques" you're talking about.
 
Maxym said:
Hey, don't worry that way, I meant I've explored enough music, don't really get a hook from what is done nowadays, get diminishing satisfaction returns from music, so became very casual at it, and have other things to do... Like other things in life than music...

And, initially, I meant I can't really enjoy those "2020+ improved mastering techniques" you're talking about.
Click to expand...
Ok, but if you change your mind. I can recommend something you like, depending on your tastes.

MJbr2 said:
"Way better" = applying a limiter to mask obvious compression so that users of streaming platforms won't notice the distortion while listening to their favorite songs.
Click to expand...
Based on which streaming platform?
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Based on which streaming platform?
Click to expand...
Any of them. I said streaming platforms as they're the most common source these days as virtually nobody is buying CDs anymore.
Applying limiter is standard practice in recent times, unless you're talking about audiophile labels like MoFi and Analogue Productions, for example.
 
MJbr2 said:
Any of them. I said streaming platforms as they're the most common source these days as virtually nobody is buying CDs anymore.
Applying limiter is standard practice in recent times, unless you're talking about audiophile labels like MoFi and Analogue Productions, for example.
Click to expand...
So TIDAL and Amazon Music Hifi Stuff isn't anything that special, sure, I can accept that. Obviously Bad 25 sounds bad uploaded most anywhere
 
let's open a thread and wait for peoples answer instead of using google for 1 minute xD
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
So TIDAL and Amazon Music Hifi Stuff isn't anything that special, sure, I can accept that. Obviously Bad 25 sounds bad uploaded most anywhere
Click to expand...
Higher bit depth cannot save poor mastering and that's the case for 101% of recent releases/remasters.
However, if you're listening to a properly mastered album, it does add a lot (Daft Punk's Random Access Memories from 2013 is one that comes to mind).
 
Saw the Michael CD in a shop last year or so.
Looked at the back and a little weird to see that it had so few songs.
Imo they should at least include the demo versions of some of the songs for
longer playing time,If so I would buy it again :)
Do I dare say that I like this release better ( because of 2 great tracks) than MJ`s last
album from 2001 🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top