Rumours of a re-release?

Making good business decisions is not being money-hungry. They released over 20 unreleased songs in 5 years (that is a lot for a dead artist!). I agree about fake Cascio songs though - that was a huge mistake and very bad business decision.

This Is It (1)
MICHAEL (6)
Bad 25 (6)
Xscape (8)
+ they approved All In Your Name
+ they approved There Must Be More To Life Than This

They have to spread MJ's work over each release because MJ is not here to record new material.

Yeah, but I have a sneaky suspicion that the only reason they went ahead and included those Cascio songs was to save back three genuine songs for a future release, which is not good business sense and is a money-hungry decision. If fans pay for an album they should get an album, not six genuine songs, three fakes and a remix.
 
As it fits the topic at the moment,this is my version of MICHAEL:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>My personal version of the 2010 MJ release MICHAEL. I love it! <a href="http://t.co/8lQw2aeMs6">pic.twitter.com/8lQw2aeMs6</a></p>&mdash; Xscape_MJ (@Jujujunior) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jujujunior/status/548827413233532928">December 27, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Yeah, but I have a sneaky suspicion that the only reason they went ahead and included those Cascio songs was to save back three genuine songs for a future release, which is not good business sense and is a money-hungry decision. If fans pay for an album they should get an album, not six genuine songs, three fakes and a remix.

That is true. But at the time they didn't know the songs are fake (my opinion and only logic explanation). They were fooled by the Cascios.

Also I wouldn't call The Way You Love Me (2010 version) a remix, since MJ did work on the song with Neff-U and planned to re-visit it for his future album. So inclusion of that song on the album is not a bad decision in my opinion.
 
That is true. But at the time they didn't know the songs are fake (my opinion and only logic explanation). They were fooled by the Cascios.

Also I wouldn't call The Way You Love Me (2010 version) a remix, since MJ did work on the song with Neff-U and planned to re-visit it for his future album. So inclusion of that song on the album is not a bad decision in my opinion.

I don't believe they genuinely believed those songs were Michael.
 
I don't believe they genuinely believed those songs were Michael.

We can't possibly know right now. I hope that the trial, D.S.'s book and The Truth Untold documentary will give us the answers we need. Like I said, for now what I said is the only logic explanation to me.
 
It seems to me that The Truth Untold isn't going to reveal anything we don't already know. Keep in mind that D.S. didn't interview Eddie Cascio or James Porte or John Branca for this book; odds are, he's only going to restate information we already knew or assessed (i.e., Rodney Jerkins exited the MICHAEL album because of the Cascio tracks). The only reason I'm planning to buy the book is because it's going to outline Michael's last three years in the studio, with the help of Brad Buxer, Michael Prince and some others.

As far as the Cascio situation goes? I'm not anticipating anything.

That is true. But at the time they didn't know the songs are fake (my opinion and only logic explanation). They were fooled by the Cascios.

That doesn't make sense. How could they be fooled by the Cascios? I highly doubt Branca and McClain paid unknown amounts to Eddie for exclusive rights to the songs and shipped them off to various producers without listening to them once.

All it takes is a few minutes of one's time to figure out that the lead vocal isn't Michael. Ne-Yo, Chucky Klapow, Rodney Jerkins, Cory Rooney and Will.i.am could.

Also I wouldn't call The Way You Love Me (2010 version) a remix, since MJ did work on the song with Neff-U and planned to re-visit it for his future album. So inclusion of that song on the album is not a bad decision in my opinion.

I know I shouldn't be so low to continue responding to these kinds of comments, but it's getting to the point where I shouldn't call any song a remix out of concern that you'll start an argument and attempt to prove why it isn't. If we want to call the songs remixes, let us. If you want to call them contemporizations or reworkings or reimaginings or whatever, go right ahead. But for the love of God, stop trying to argue this subject. It's annoying.

I don't believe they genuinely believed those songs were Michael.

McClain didn't; he held up the production process for a short period of time protesting them. In the end he essentially forfeited and worked on his own tracks, refusing to be involved with the Cascio tracks.

I'm not so sure Branca did either. The most logical explanation I've come up with is that he was simply blinded by the aspect of having twelve finished post-trial songs (an era that is severely lacking in usable material) and didn't think it through properly. Or he really does believe the songs are real.
 
That doesn't make sense. How could they be fooled by the Cascios? I highly doubt Branca and McClain paid unknown amounts to Eddie for exclusive rights to the songs and shipped them off to various producers without listening to them once.

You answered your own question:

"McClain didn't; he held up the production process for a short period of time protesting them. In the end he essentially forfeited and worked on his own tracks, refusing to be involved with the Cascio tracks.

I'm not so sure Branca did either. The most logical explanation I've come up with is that he was simply blinded by the aspect of having twelve finished post-trial songs (an era that is severely lacking in usable material) and didn't think it through properly. Or he really does believe the songs are real."

I never said they didn't listen to them once. They obviously did and McClain thought the songs were fake and Branca thought the songs were real. He obviously can't recognize MJ's voice, he is a lawyer, not music producer so maybe that's it. He obviously isn't hardcore MJ fan. So yes, he was fooled by the Cascios, he was gullible and he decided to trust their word without any piece of evidence.
 
I know I shouldn't be so low to continue responding to these kinds of comments, but it's getting to the point where I shouldn't call any song a remix out of concern that you'll start an argument and attempt to prove why it isn't. If we want to call the songs remixes, let us. If you want to call them contemporizations or reworkings or reimaginings or whatever, go right ahead. But for the love of God, stop trying to argue this subject. It's annoying.

I'm not arguing at all, you are. It's annoying for me too. You can call them whatever you like to call them. But I thought that that discussion was about Xscape songs, whether they are contemporizations or remixes. I didn't know that you think finished songs on MICHAEL album are remixes also. That is new to me and it's just WOW, but OK, that's your opinion and you're entitled to have one.

Just one question, so for you, everything that is done to the song after its demo/early version state it's remixing? Even if it's done by the artist himself, completely or partially in this case?
 
He obviously can't recognize MJ's voice, he is a lawyer, not music producer so maybe that's it. He obviously isn't hardcore MJ fan. So yes, he was fooled by the Cascios, he was gullible and he decided to trust their word without any piece of evidence.

That's not a fair comment to make. Just because you think the songs are real doesn't mean that you're any less of a fan than anyone else. I've spoken to hardcore fans on this very board who genuinely think the songs are authentic. You can't rightfully pass comment at Branca for thinking the songs are real.

I'm not arguing at all, you are. It's annoying for me too. You can call them whatever you like to call them. But I thought that that discussion was about Xscape songs, whether they are contemporizations or remixes. I didn't know that you think finished songs on MICHAEL album are remixes also. That is new to me and it's just WOW, but OK, that's your opinion and you're entitled to have one.

Whenever anyone refers to a new rendition of a song as a remix, you're immediately jumping in and saying we're wrong. You're bound to start pissing people off with that constant attitude.

Just one question, so for you, everything that is done to the song after its demo/early version state it's remixing? Even if it's done by the artist himself, completely or partially in this case?

On a technical level? Yes. As far as the textbook definition is concerned, whenever an artist/producer/musician enters the studio and alters part of a song by adding/removing certain elements, the new mix produced by said artist/producer/musician can be defined as a remix.

On a personal level? No. I've always viewed remixes as a complete deviation from the original track, completely disregarding anything from the original source material. That's why the album versions of Hold My Hand or Another Day or even Breaking News aren't remixes: you can hear various elements and portions that both the original and current mixes share. And that's why almost every song on Xscape are remixes: they are completely separate songs.

I'm disappointed in myself that I'm seriously falling to this petty argument again. If people want to call the songs remixes, let them; don't jump in and try to give them some fifth-grade level argument as to why you're correct and they're incorrect. I know many, many people on this board are sick of it.
 
I hope that the trial, D.S.'s book and The Truth Untold documentary will give us the answers we need.

The only reason I'm planning to buy the book is because it's going to outline Michael's last three years in the studio, with the help of Brad Buxer, Michael Prince and some others.

Question please: the book/documentary is still scheduled to be released?
 
Just because you think the songs are real

I don't.

Whenever anyone refers to a new rendition of a song as a remix, you're immediately jumping in and saying we're wrong.

I did it once and that started a long discussion. Now I did it again, but the topic was completely different and I didn't mean to start the discussion again.

On a technical level? Yes. As far as the textbook definition is concerned, whenever an artist/producer/musician enters the studio and alters part of a song by adding/removing certain elements, the new mix produced by said artist/producer/musician can be defined as a remix.

On a personal level? No. I've always viewed remixes as a complete deviation from the original track, completely disregarding anything from the original source material. That's why the album versions of Hold My Hand or Another Day or even Breaking News aren't remixes: you can hear various elements and portions that both the original and current mixes share. And that's why almost every song on Xscape are remixes: they are completely separate songs.

OK. Thanks. Nice to know your opinion.
 
Making good business decisions is not being money-hungry. They released over 20 unreleased songs in 5 years (that is a lot for a dead artist!). I agree about fake Cascio songs though - that was a huge mistake and very bad business decision.

This Is It (1)
MICHAEL (6)
Bad 25 (6)
Xscape (8)
+ they approved All In Your Name
+ they approved There Must Be More To Life Than This

They have to spread MJ's work over each release because MJ is not here to record new material.

Also the French version of I Just Can't Stop Loving You! On top of that, the demos for She's Out of My Life, Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' and Beat It as well as the songs on Xscape! What about alternative mixes (such as LNFSG ft. JT or The Way You Love Me!) too?

Ask any fan of a dead artist, that's a shit load of new songs for such a short time period. Considering MJ's dead, I'm happy with 8-10 new songs each proper album (Quality > Quantity, right?).
 
Back
Top