Official Statement From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

[butterflies]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

you are right any real fan knows that is not him, they are covering up for themselves and they will refuse to admit everything.

I love this. Anyone who doesn't believe it's 100% fake is not a "real" fan... lol, okay.
Good, then I can't wait for Sony to be sued over it.

 

[dupsy]

When has michael sang an angry song with indiffrent tone,He used his angry tone on scream,leave me alone,tabloid junke,privacy bços he's been burnt by the media and one can feel his anger and frustrations when he sing those songs whereas breaking n is flat/emotionless the guy singing the lead vocals has not experienced the media's brunt,

 

[cppounders]

Are you kidding me........are you actually kidding me?

I'm going to say it one last time in big capital letters so its sticks in your mind.

THE SOLE REASON WHY WE DONT THINK THIS IS MICHAEL, IS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DONT THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE HIM. NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE FAMILY HAS SAID, WE WERE THINKING RATIONALLY ON MONDAY MORNING WHEN WE STARTED LISTENING TO THE SONG. WE WERE AGAINST THE FAMILY BEFORE MONDAY MORNING, THINKING THEY WERE JUST TALKING ****. AS SOON AS WE HEARD THE SONG, WITH OUR OWN EARS. THATS WHEN WE THOUGHT IT WAS FAKE.

Again lets summarise:

• Before Monday, we thought the family were talking crap. We didnt buy into it at all and fully expected the family to be embarrassed on Monday morning.
• The SOLE reason why we dont think this is Michael, is that we have heard it and it doesnt sound like him in most parts. That is all, there is no other reason.

I'm just going to have to come to the conclusion that you are reading my posts and refusing to listen. As the idea that we dont believe its Michael because it doesnt sound like him must be terribly hard for you to comprehend!

Your reasoning made sense before the announcement by the Estate today. However, they have confirmed that a long list of MJ collaborators, forensic experts, etc. have said that the track is INDEED Michael Jackson. You refuse to believe anything unless MJ came down from the heavens and told you himself. How is that any sort of reasonable? It's not.

SCIENTIFIC PROOF is hard to debate... Oh wait, you don't believe they did it. If that's the case, then why don't you hire a lawyer and SUE THEM? Then they will have to show you their proof... of course, you would have to gather proof and evidence that it is not him, but you haven't/can't/won't do that.

How about you put your money where your mouth is? The ball is in your court... the Estate has made the response that everyone so desperately wanted. It's just strange that whenever it's not what people want to hear, THEN they try and discredit it.

 

[Autumn II]

You guys KNOW what you hear. Believe in yourself.

Oh, I DO. This is very different from a complex court case. In this instance we are ALL "eye-witnesses." We can HEAR the music, right? There are NO public statements that can influence what we actually HEAR. . . .

The problem is, as always, those who attack one-another for not thinking as THEY do. There should be room for different opinions, with respect. And if not, why not? We have learned Michael's lesson about tolerance, right? NOBODY should be calling another person "irrational" or "delusional" for a difference of opinion. Right?

 

[cppounders]

This statement is 0% no different than the arguments they've had before. I can't believe people are believing it based upon what other people say- trust yourself, people.

Have you ever seen Changeling? Everyone "official" kept telling Christine: "This IS your son." (But his height is shorter!) "Yeah that happens under stress". (But he doesn't look like my son!) "Yeah it's been a year, he grew." (It's not my son!!) "Give him a try- everyone else says it is. Look lady, we've had it officially confirmed that this IS your son. You are crazy- just accept what we say."

She wasn't going to accept people's thoughts just because they were official people in uniform- she obviously knew with her heart that wasn't her son and she didn't let people convince her to just swallow it. You guys KNOW what you hear. Believe in yourself.

I know what I hear, I hear Michael Jackson.

It would be different if the Estate were just saying - "it's him, we promise." They're not doing that -- they're saying "it's him, according to experts, collaborators, etc. We also went a step further and had independent musicologists confirm this as well." So are you saying that if Christine had a DNA test performed and it came back conclusively that it was her son, she should still not accept that? Because that's basically what each person is doing when they still refute the fact that it is MJ on these vocals.

 

[Autumn II]

The problem IS, that this is the first time in HISTORY anyone has doubted the authenticity of Michael's voice on a record. For that reason alone, I respectfully am of the opinion that those three tracks should be replaced by three that are unmistakably Michael.

 

[cppounders]

The problem IS, that this is the first time in HISTORY anyone has doubted the authenticity of Michael's voice on a record. For that reason alone, I respectfully am of the opinion that those three tracks should be replaced by three that are unmistakably Michael.

No, it's not. People had the same moaning and complaining when 2000 Watts was first released. That's one of my favorite tracks off Invincible, but it doesn't necessarily "sound" like him at a casual listen.

 

[L.T.D]

Your reasoning made sense before the announcement by the Estate today. However, they have confirmed that a long list of MJ collaborators, forensic experts, etc. have said that the track is INDEED Michael Jackson. You refuse to believe anything unless MJ came down from the heavens and told you himself. How is that any sort of reasonable? It's not.

Have you seen the Ricky Gervais film 'The Invention of Lying'? It's a pretty terrible film, but have you seen it?

In all honesty i've tried to listen to the song and convince myself its MJ, but its just not happening. I'm sorry. He's in there. But its only for like 10% of the song, I can hardly call it an MJ song.

SCIENTIFIC PROOF is hard to debate... Oh wait, you don't believe they did it. If that's the case, then why don't you hire a lawyer and SUE THEM? Then they will have to show you their proof... of course, you would have to gather proof and evidence that it is not him, but you haven't/can't/won't do that.

Science has no place in music. Music is about FEELING, Michael would have told you that himself.

If they want to prove its him so badly, they can show us the results of their 'tests' or give let us hear the raw demo. They arent going to do that though, because it will expose just how little of MJ is on this song. We are entitled to proof, why should we just take their word for it?

How about you put your money where your mouth is? The ball is in your court... the Estate has made the response that everyone so desperately wanted. It's just strange that whenever it's not what people want to hear, THEN they try and discredit it.

You mean how you have been discrediting everything we have been saying for days just because its not what YOU want to hear. I'm talking about before the estate's announcement. You've been doing it for days.

So i'd say that last statement you made was slightly hypocritical Mr. Pounders.

 

[Autumn II]

No, it's not. People had the same moaning and complaining when 2000 Watts was first released. That's one of my favorite tracks off Invincible, but it doesn't necessarily "sound" like him at a casual listen.

There are now close to a thousand posts in this thread, of BOTH opinions. That, alone, represents a problem. It's something that has never happened before, and certainly NOT about 2000 Watts.

I do not listen "casually," but carefully. I NEVER expected this controversy. I stand firm in my opinion that these three tracks should be replaced, probably from unreleased music from "Vince." Given that the question is even being raised, I'd say, why NOT replace them, and honor Michael's musical legacy that way?

It's not just US, you know. I don't necessarily believe Michael's family members, who might also have other agendas, and I do not necessarily believe "experts" who are on the Sony payroll. I DO believe the thousands of fans, many internationally, who are doubting the authenticity of this music. Many are going: :doh:

 

[SoCav]

SCIENTIFIC PROOF is hard to debate...

It would be different if the Estate were just saying - "it's him, we promise." They're not doing that -- they're saying "it's him, according to experts, collaborators, etc. We also went a step further and had independent musicologists confirm this as well." So are you saying that if Christine had a DNA test performed and it came back conclusively that it was her son, she should still not accept that? Because that's basically what each person is doing when they still refute the fact that it is MJ on these vocals.

I disagree with you, because I don't think this proof is scientific. One of the key criteria of science is that everything is made available: if a researcher finds something interesting, he cannot just say: "oh, I found xyz," he has to give evidence for those claims. In this case, all that we have to go on is the word of the estate's attorney. This is not scientific at all, as we don't even know the names of the experts who reportedly looked at the material, let alone have seen any of their actual findings.

In fact, I don't think there is any difference between the estate saying "it's him, we promise" and "it's him, according to the (unknown) tests of (unnamed) experts." And naming some big names who believe that it is Michael might seem impressive (and by all means, do with that information whatever you want), but it is, again, not scientific.

 

[Petrarose]

No, it's not. People had the same moaning and complaining when 2000 Watts was first released. That's one of my favorite tracks off Invincible, but it doesn't necessarily "sound" like him at a casual listen.

People keep bringing up 2000 Watts, but even though his tone is different, you can tell it is Michael. I was not on the board then so I did not know this was going on. I bought the cd and loved Watts and recognized it was simply different and not an impersonator. However, with BN I hear a little Michael and Jason taking over the song and that is not good enough. Let us use another song.

Guys I am going to Sony in New York City tomorrow. I just checked the address and it is only a few blocks from where I live. I am going to try to bring our main concerns to someone there, if they let me in the building. Maybe they will laugh at me and call me a lunatic, but I will be professional and feel that I tried to do something, because simply posting here is not enough. I have been on the board on day so I basically know what our concerns are. Of course the people who have no concerns do not have to worry.

 

[SmoothCollins]

I know what I hear, I hear Michael Jackson.

It would be different if the Estate were just saying - "it's him, we promise." They're not doing that -- they're saying "it's him, according to experts, collaborators, etc. We also went a step further and had independent musicologists confirm this as well." So are you saying that if Christine had a DNA test performed and it came back conclusively that it was her son, she should still not accept that? Because that's basically what each person is doing when they still refute the fact that it is MJ on these vocals.

I respect that if you hear Michael and you believe it's him that you stick by what you feel and what you hear . But then you said "it would be different if the estate didn't have "proof"... so are you relying on yourself and your ears, or are you relying on what they tell you?

I don't mind what people believe one way or the other as long as it's based on what you hear and not believing what someone tells you they hear.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

I shot off another message to Sony:

"Now that the Estate of Michael Jackson has released their statement revealing the name of the vocal impersonator on Breaking News, would you please consider issuing an apology that this was promoted as a new "Michael Jackson" song? The track clearly features another singer on lead vocals for a large portion of the song. If we had known this from the outset, there would have been far less outcry. Many of the fans feel deceived and dubious of future tracks that may be released under the name Michael Jackson.

Additionally, many fans would really appreciate hearing the rough demo that the industry experts heard during their authenticity judging. I hope you consider making this available in some way.

Thank you."

Ok good...only that Teddy is claiming James Porte is only on the background vocals, not the lead vocals. Sony's no doubt gonna say that, if they even reply at all.

 

[butterflies]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

This estate has earned the benefit of the doubt as they have conducted Michael's business masterfully since June 2009.

They have sent MJ's fan base a letter addressing our concerns which they really didnt have to do but shows me they respect the fans concerns and I applaud them for addressing us.

What im still waiting for from those who believe this isnt MJ is a motive. Does it benefit Michael to have fake songs on an album of course not. Is it smart business for Sony and there 250 million contract? No of course not. Does the estate flourish with reduced sales/controversy? No of course not. So whats the motive for having fake songs?

One last thing. I ask all of you MJ fans to buy the album and if you refuse to believe all of the experts regarding the Casio tracks, then just think of this as a 7 song album. I ask you to do this in honor of michaels legacy and for us fellow fans. If album sales are low that could impact us fans as we will get less MJ products in the future. Its simple, a public hungry for Michael will get more MJ products. If sales are cold we will get fewer releases. Its just supply and demand. How would you all feel if poor album sales cost as a DVD release of the Bad tour as an example??

So I ask again, buy the album and give the estate the benefit of the doubt. The quicker MJ's sales diminish the less we will get of him. Just remember thaT

:yes::clapping: Yes, thank you!! All the people claiming that they won't buy the album will probably change their minds when they hear us talking about how great the songs are, and just remember who you are hurting by doing that.

 

[L.T.D]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

:yes::clapping: Yes, thank you!! All the people claiming that they won't buy the album will probably change their minds when they hear us talking about how great the songs are, and just remember who you are hurting by doing that.

We'll probably just download them for free to be honest with you.

I plan to download the real songs for free and then buy Dangerous on iTunes to make up for it.

 

[Ashtanga]

:doh:


If Michael were here, none of this would be happening. *big sigh*

 

[cppounders]

Have you seen the Ricky Gervais film 'The Invention of Lying'? It's a pretty terrible film, but have you seen it?

In all honesty i've tried to listen to the song and convince myself its MJ, but its just not happening. I'm sorry. He's in there. But its only for like 10% of the song, I can hardly call it an MJ song.



Science has no place in music. Music is about FEELING, Michael would have told you that himself.

If they want to prove its him so badly, they can show us the results of their 'tests' or give let us hear the raw demo. They arent going to do that though, because it will expose just how little of MJ is on this song. We are entitled to proof, why should we just take their word for it?



You mean how you have been discrediting everything we have been saying for days just because its not what YOU want to hear. I'm talking about before the estate's announcement. You've been doing it for days.

So i'd say that last statement you made was slightly hypocritical Mr. Pounders.

Science has no place in music? I'm sorry, but vocal analysis and the work of forensic experts definitely has a place in this case. Unfortunately, the results don't find in your favor, so you choose instead to ignore them.

My opinion on the issue has not changed one bit since this started... from the moment I heard the song the first time I knew it was MJ. How exactly was I hypocritical? You're the one questioning the accuracy of people that worked with MJ for 30 years and also the forensic results. Give me a break.

There are now close to a thousand posts in this thread, of BOTH opinions. That, alone, represents a problem. It's something that has never happened before, and certainly NOT about 2000 Watts.

I do not listen "casually," but carefully. I NEVER expected this controversy. I stand firm in my opinion that these three tracks should be replaced, probably from unreleased music from "Vince." Given that the question is even being raised, I'd say, why NOT replace them, and honor Michael's musical legacy that way?

It's not just US, you know. I don't necessarily believe Michael's family members, who might also have other agendas, and I do not necessarily believe "experts" who are on the Sony payroll. I DO believe the thousands of fans, many internationally, who are doubting the authenticity of this music. Many are going: :doh:

Michael's family will do or say anything that will put $ in their pocket. MJ distanced himself from these people while alive; don't you think there's a reason for that?

The best way to honor Michael's musical legacy is to let us hear his work... even if some of it was unfinished, they did get one of Michael's most trusted producers to finish the track.

I disagree with you, because I don't think this proof is scientific, as you call it. One of the key criteria of science is that everything is made available: if a researcher finds something interesting, he cannot just say: "oh, I found xyz," he has to give evidence for those claims. In this case, all that we have to go on is the word of the estate's attorney. This is not scientific at all, as we don't even know the names of the experts who reportedly looked at the material, let alone have seen any of their actual findings.

As I stated to L.T.D., if you feel that strongly about it, then sue the Estate/Sony for the tracks being fake and at that point they will have to provide the results in court.

However, you would have the burden to prove the charges that you are saying -- you would have to have proof of your own, and a YouTube video of Jason Malachi singing the macarena just isn't going to be enough.

 

[tricia70]

Okay this is really laughable. Cpounders thank you for your logical and common sense explanations. Unfortunately they don't work for irrational, emotional ppl. They refuse to believe no matter how much the evidence is placed in front of them. It's useless. To the point that forensic evidence has no place in music??? HA? HOW FUNNY IS that? Of course it does.

When it comes to dead celebrities anybody can try to sell tracks and pass them as the real thing. All estates have to be double sure they are authentic, they'd be fools not to. So Michael's estate did the wise thing. They have prove it is MJ without a shadow of a doubt. There are no legal rammifications for them with that proof. But of course that still not good enough for these ppl. They know - its a feeling - they can hear him. They have been in the studio with MJ in 2007 and oh those 35 years and they are sure it is MJ. Funny.

 

[diana79]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

Anyway, the one thing that stood out to me with all the tweets back and forth was the one line where Cory makes the comment that too many non-family are involved in running the estate or something to that effect (not quoting word for word). When I read that , that instantly made me think that this is what this is becoming about for some, whether the Jackson family is making it about that or not. For some, this is the actual fight because otherwise why even mention that when the problem is suppose to be about the song's authenticity? If the family members heard the songs, then they must have been consulted in some fashion. And if they don't believe that the song is Michael, then fine; they have that right to question it. But, why would anyone bring up this bit about who is running the estate?

I agree with your concern about Cory's comment that too many non-family are involved in the running of the estate. That made me question what is really going on here.

Anyway, I just reread the statement. Some other people have mentioned it, but I think it's important to mention it again. The statement says 8 named people that have worked with Michael and 2 unnamed forensic musicologists agreed that the vocals are Michael. However, it does NOT say that 100% of the experts that listened to the track agree that it's Michael.

Since the statement isn't specific about this, it seems possible that there are some people that heard the track did not agree, but the estate just isn't telling us about those people. The list of people that heard the track who didn't agree (which apparently includes Taryll Jackson and Cory Rooney) is also important.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

:yes::clapping: Yes, thank you!! All the people claiming that they won't buy the album will probably change their minds when they hear us talking about how great the songs are, and just remember who you are hurting by doing that.

My ethical stance is that I would be hurting MICHAEL, and his children, by buying an album that I highly doubt he would have agreed to. That is all we can do, is act on our consciences, one-by-one?

Peace. . .

 

[cppounders]

I respect that if you hear Michael and you believe it's him that you stick by what you feel and what you hear . But then you said "it would be different if the estate didn't have "proof"... so are you relying on yourself and your ears, or are you relying on what they tell you?

I don't mind what people believe one way or the other as long as it's based on what you hear and not believing what someone tells you they hear.

I definitely hear Michael - I heard Michael at 11pm Sunday night when I heard the song the first time. I meant that it would be more reasonable to question the Estate if they had not had Sweiden, Freeze, Riley, etc. listen to the track and have the forensic analysis performed. But since they have stated all of this was done, I think some people (not saying you) are going far too overboard with these boycotts and their claims.

Thanks for a polite, reasonable reply to my post :cheers:

 

[riviera1992]

"Six of Michael’s former producers and engineers who had worked with Michael over the past 30 years - Bruce Swedien, Matt Forger, Stewart Brawley, Michael Prince, Dr. Freeze and Teddy Riley - were all invited to a listening session to hear the raw vocals of the Cascio tracks in question. All of these persons listened to the a cappella versions of the vocals on the Cascio tracks being considered for inclusion on the album, so they could give an opinion as to whether or not the lead vocals were sung by Michael. They all confirmed that the vocal was definitely Michael."



I think we can safely say its mj, these guys would no his singing voice better than his family to be honest I think.

Man, how I would've like to be a fly on the wall during that session.:wild: Just WOW!

--------

 

[SoCav]

As I stated to L.T.D., if you feel that strongly about it, then sue the Estate/Sony for the tracks being fake and at that point they will have to provide the results in court.

However, you would have the burden to prove the charges that you are saying -- you would have to have proof of your own, and a YouTube video of Jason Malachi singing the macarena just isn't going to be enough.

I find that a strange line of reasoning. I merely pointed out that the proof the estate has shown so far does not meet the criteria of scientific evidence, in response to your claim that they have shown scientific proof. My own opinion on the vocals is irrelevant here.

 

[wolfrevenant]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

I agree with your concern about Cory's comment that too many non-family are involved in the running of the estate. That made me question what is really going on here.

Anyway, I just reread the statement. Some other people have mentioned it, but I think it's important to mention it again. The statement says 8 named people that have worked with Michael and 2 unnamed forensic musicologists agreed that the vocals are Michael. However, it does NOT say that 100% of the experts that listened to the track agree that it's Michael.

Since the statement isn't specific about this, it seems possible that there are some people that heard the track did not agree, but the estate just isn't telling us about those people. The list of people that heard the track who didn't agree (which apparently includes Taryll Jackson and Cory Rooney) is also important.

That's one of the things I'm concerned about, regarding the statement from the estate. They failed to mention the people who were invited to the listening session, and who voted that the vocals on BN did not belong to Michael, such as Taryll Jackson and Cory Rooney. Instead, they gave a statement with the impression that it was a unanimous vote in favour of the opinion that it's 100% Michael.

 

[butterflies]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

Trust me a lot of negative things about Sony is already out there and proven. We could use that alone and cripple their market by massly dispering info packets letting people know more things about them and our promotions of their competitors.

There are also documented things concerning Michael that we can share with the world who likely were not on fans boards and in the thicke of things as many of us have been.

All of these things we can shout from the rooftops, our emails and media platforms. Sony has FAR too much to lose but if they wanna play- we can play that game and they will be the biggest loser because between what Michael's children could lose from our delay in boycotting ALL THINGS SONY will only be temporary and some fans are willing to abstain from everything Sony but Michael's CD so the children will still get the profits. Sony however, can never make up for the damage that will be created in the publics mind concerning them, they have many industries they are involved in and ALL OF THEM would suffer.

It's not what I nor the fans are happy about doing because we know there are many people working for the name Sony but it is Sony's job to protect their market so their emploees will have jobs. Our fight is with them and it never needs to get to that but they should by now by now Michael's fans are NOT all talk and if it does go that far we will come through with our pledge.

LMAO @ crippling Sony. Good luck.
You won't make Sony look bad, you will make Michael and his fans look bad. :doh:

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Official Message From The Estate Of Michael Jackson To The Fans

Since the statement isn't specific about this, it seems possible that there are some people that heard the track did not agree, but the estate just isn't telling us about those people. The list of people that heard the track who didn't agree (which apparently includes Taryll Jackson and Cory Rooney) is also important.

Of COURSE. And the people that did respond, were probably on the payroll. Hearing the statements of EXPERTS does nothing to influence what I've heard, myself, unless there is independent confirmation. In that sense, we are ALL "eye-witnesses." And remember, this has NEVER happened before... and certainly not for 2000 Watts.

I will believe an "official" statement, when I know it was done by someone -- anyone -- independent of the Sony/estate payroll. In the meantime, I know what I heard, and will respectfully agree to disagree with those who heard differently.

 

[L.T.D]

Science has no place in music? I'm sorry, but vocal analysis and the work of forensic experts definitely has a place in this case. Unfortunately, the results don't find in your favor, so you choose instead to ignore them.

Well no, I dont believe a test even took place. Actually....

My opinion on the issue has not changed one bit since this started... from the moment I heard the song the first time I knew it was MJ. How exactly was I hypocritical? You're the one questioning the accuracy of people that worked with MJ for 30 years and also the forensic results. Give me a break.

Your being hypocritical by accusing me of discrediting people's comments just because I dont agree with them, when you are doing the exact thing to me and others. Im not so sure you know what hypocritical means when seeing your comeback to that...but ok.

Michael's family will do or say anything that will put $ in their pocket. MJ distanced himself from these people while alive; don't you think there's a reason for that?

You mean his kids and mother? Cant recall him distancing himself from his kids or mother. Dont spew the crap on me that they have been brainwashed by the rest of the family either. They have their own minds.

The best way to honor Michael's musical legacy is to let us hear his work... even if some of it was unfinished, they did get one of Michael's most trusted producers to finish the track.

Michael would not want us to hear it unfinished. He was a perfectionist, so its far from honouring his legacy.

As I stated to L.T.D., if you feel that strongly about it, then sue the Estate/Sony for the tracks being fake and at that point they will have to provide the results in court.

Are you high? We are in no position to sue anybody. We are just fans. One of his family members could sue on the other hand.

However, you would have the burden to prove the charges that you are saying -- you would have to have proof of your own, and a YouTube video of Jason Malachi singing the macarena just isn't going to be enough.

I think the fact that 1000's of fans are doubting the authenticty of the track would be good enough to back up the charges to be honest with you.

But we arent going to sue anyway? Thats ridiculous? We'll just boycott the album instead

 

[cppounders]

I find that a strange line of reasoning. I merely pointed out that the proof the estate has shown so far does not meet the criteria of scientific evidence, in response to your claim that they have shown scientific proof. My own opinion on the vocals is irrelevant here.

How does the following not meet the criteria of scientific evidence?

The Estate then retained one of the best-known forensic musicologists in the nation to listen to the vocals without any instrumental accompaniment (“a cappella”), and to compare them with a cappella vocals from previous Michael songs. This expert performed waveform analysis, an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity, on the Cascio tracks, as well as previously released tracks with Michael’s voice, and reported that ALL of the lead vocals analyzed (which included Cascio tracks) were the voice of Michael Jackson.

Sony Music conducted their own investigation by hiring yet a second well-respected forensic musicologist who also compared the a cappella lead vocals from Cascio tracks against previously released vocals of Michael's, and found that Michael’s voice was the on all sets of the raw vocals. The Cascio tracks were also played for two very prominent persons in the music industry who played crucial roles in Michael’s career. Both of these individuals believed that the lead vocals were Michael’s.

Just to be absolutely certain, I also contacted Jason Malachi, a young singer who some persons had wrongfully alleged was a “soundalike” singer that was hired to sing on the Cascio tracks, and I confirmed that he had no involvement with this project whatsoever.

Sony decided that, given the overwhelming objective evidence resulting from the exhaustive investigations outlined above, they wanted to release a record that included three of the Cascio-Porte tracks - because they believed, without reservation, that the lead vocal on all of those tracks were sung by Michael Jackson.

 

[diana79]

Am I the only one concerned that a bunch of people who worked with Michael - who are all extremely talented at their work - are being treated as the "experts" in this matter? I absolutely respect people like Bruce, Teddy, Michael Prince, etc., and their opinion on this matter is important. But, have they ever even tried to distinguish Michael's voice from that of a really, really good impersonator? I know that they have all heard Michael's voice a lot throughout the years, but the nature of their work doesn't require them to listen for forgeries. When they worked with him, there was never any question that the tracks might be fakes. They didn't listen to the vocal tracks for signs that the track was fake - they listened to try to put together the best song.

Basically, I'm wondering if even people like Bruce and Teddy could tell really good fake from a real Michael vocal, especially when the track is of somewhat poor quality and made years after they worked with him.

I'm glad that the estate and Sony asked these people for their opinions, but I think they need to have more than 2 forensic musicologists involved in something this big.

 

[summer]

The problem IS, that this is the first time in HISTORY anyone has doubted the authenticity of Michael's voice on a record. For that reason alone, I respectfully am of the opinion that those three tracks should be replaced by three that are unmistakably Michael.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

That is really all I want as well.

For the first time ever I am actually happy we have Amazon and iTunes where you can CHOOSE which songs you buy out of an album. I'll just buy the other ones and leave the ones, where I have doubts if it's MJ or not, out... if Sony nor the Estate won't do that for me. :cheers: