Michael - The Great Album Debate

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Much of Jimi Hendrix's posthumous releases were performed by a fake vocalist. Including compilations such as 'The Root of Jimi Hendrix'. "Free Spirit", "Get That Feeling" and "Last Night" too. So there is form. Unfortunately. Back then it was a dodgy producer called Alan Douglas who stepped into the Cascio's shoes.

These tracks are so obviously fake it's unreal!

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Milli Vanilli - yes they enjoyed success but lost it all.

Boney M. wasn't exactly a fraud. Album credits were legit (in pseudonym format), only the live performances was staged and this was a widely known thing. (If I tell you I'm selling you a knock-off Gucci you cannot claim I misled you.)

I wrote this for "do the bartman" above

we need the details for "do the bartman". There might be a contract in which Michael gave up his rights and/or got paid a lump sum money for his participation etc , he might be credited with an alias etc - in short it might have been legal. and my guess it is as the simpsons producers acknowledged this in later years.

Plus not crediting Michael in "do the bartman" is not a fraud because they were selling a "simpsons" album which was sing by the voice talents (nancy cartwright in this case) who indeed provided the vocals.

edited to add :

You won't get them. There is none as someone else has been credited. You are not going to risk your on-going contract by signing another one with an alias. It would be too easy to dig it out. Let's not omit that verbal contracts with witnesses exist too. So if there was a verbal contract, you won't have necessarily a written one.

This was what I meant : in 1998 Matt Groening acknowledged that Michael indeed co-wrote the song but didn't receive credit due to his contract with record label. As he easily and freely acknowledged such "non-credited" issue, I'll go with that MJ's non-credited thing was completely legal /legit and had separate agreements that the parties willingly signed.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Milli Vanilli - yes they enjoyed success but lost it all.

Boney M. wasn't exactly a fraud. Album credits were legit (in pseudonym format), only the live performances was staged and this was a widely known thing. (If I tell you I'm selling you a knock-off Gucci you cannot claim I misled you.)

I wrote this for "do the bartman" above

we need the details for "do the bartman". There might be a contract in which Michael gave up his rights and/or got paid a lump sum money for his participation etc , he might be credited with an alias etc - in short it might have been legal. and my guess it is as the simpsons producers acknowledged this in later years.

Plus not crediting Michael in "do the bartman" is not a fraud because they were selling a "simpsons" album which was sing by the voice talents (nancy cartwright in this case) who indeed provided the vocals.

edited to add :


This was what I meant : in 1998 Matt Groening acknowledged that Michael indeed co-wrote the song but didn't receive credit due to his contract with record label. As he easily and freely acknowledged such "non-credited" issue, I'll go with that MJ's non-credited thing was completely legal and had separate agreements that the parties willingly signed.

Oooh, but that is exactly the point with the Cascio tracks!

Scenario A)
Many want to see those tracks credited. I am just going to push it to the far extreme, what if the credits "Michael Jackson" is an alias of the imposter? Wouldn't that be legal? Is there a law forbidding to have an alias that is an actual name. Michael is a very common name. Jackson is also a very common family name.

Besides, if we accept the theory that the imposter is not credited, we fall in the scenario B ("Do The Bartman"). The imposter was paid and hasta la vista, we'll call you back when necessary.

Set aside the scenarios A and B, I just can't understand how come that people give more credit to Teddy Riley than to Taryll who also was there in the studio?

Now, many scream fraud is impossible, but nobody seems to be shocked by Teddy's claim that Michael jackson is still alive. So what is ridiculous actually is to believe that faking tracks is extremely complicated, yet faking death isn't?

I am just drawing attention that the same person claims (hello credibility!):
1) Cascio tracks are not fake
2) Michael Jackson is alive

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I actually checked the copyright records from copyright.gov

"Do the Bartman" is credited as "written by Michael Jackson and Bryan Loren" on November 1995.

So I'll go with "they didn't list MJ's name on the booklet but he was correctly credited on the copyright records" explanation for it.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I actually checked the copyright records from copyright.gov

"Do the Bartman" is credited as "written by Michael Jackson and Bryan Loren" on November 1995.

So I'll go with "they didn't list MJ's name on the booklet but he was correctly credited on the copyright records" explanation for it.

In 1995???? For a song that was released in 1990?
Ok, well, maybe the Cascio will be credited in 5 years then

 

[Mikaeel101]

I figured why not compile a list of questions and see what people think about this whole thing. It’s obvious reading a few of you guys comments where you guys stand, but I’d like to know where you stand and your opinions on all sides this situation. I’m not trying to start an argument or hammer anybody for choosing the other side. Me personally, I don’t think the 3 songs on the Michael album are Michael at all, I believe Jason recorded them.

But I just wanna be fair here. I’ve made a list of questions that I’d like members on both sides of this situation to answer. I don’t want a whole lot of discussion here, just answer the questions and that‘s it. I honestly just want members to answer these questions as truthfully as possible. I just wanna know, on all sides of this argument how you guys feel about the whole thing.

Here are a few rules though:

1. Only answer the question that applies to you. For ex, if you think it’s Michael, only answer the “For people who believe it’s Michael” part.

2. And if you gonna answer these questions, please do ALL of them. I don’t want people popping in and answering 1 or 2. It defeats the purpose and your probably only answering the ones you can back up.

Here we go:

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now?

2. Do you think Michael deserved this?

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album?

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault?

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?

11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?

12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?

15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?

For people who believe it’s Michael

1. How come the songs were registered the day after Michael died and not before? Why a day after, why not a week, a month? The songs wouldn’t get to see the light of day until a year and a half later, what was the rush?

2. How come, during the teaser for “Breaking News” all we heard was an “ow”? Would it have mattered to give the fans a peek at the 1st verse, and the controversy surrounding vocals would’ve started early?

3. What were your thoughts on “Breaking News” as you were listening to it for the first time?

4. Did you download “Breaking News” after it premiered?”

5. Were you surprised to find out a lot of fans were bashing the song after it premiered?

6. Why would Sony let fans hear “Breaking News” then turn around and release “Hold My Hand” as a single instead?

7. Why were none of the Cascio songs singles?

8. How come there are barely any ad libs or high notes on any of the Cascio tracks?

9. How come Jason hasn’t said anything on this yet? When you found out Jason (allegedly) confessed, what ran through your mind? Before you found out his account was hacked, did you have second thoughts about it actually being him?

10. How come there are only 3 Cascio songs on the “Michael” album? If the songs were so real, why not a full album’s worth of Cascio songs?

11. How come there is no studio footage of Michael recording the songs? Why do we have pictures of a studio, but none with Michael in it? Why would the Cascio’s have video of Michael from the 80’s but not in the recording studio in ‘07?

12. Why do you think a majority of fans who have been waiting 10 years for this album refuse to buy it?

13. Why for the first time in 50 years do us fans question Michael’s vocals?

14. Regardless of how real the vocals are, it has caused controversy. Do you think it’s a good idea to include more of these songs on the next album?

15. How come famous artists and fans of Michael‘s, Usher, Timberlake, Bieber, etc haven’t given their thoughts on the album? Do you think they’d bash it, or praise it? Would their opinion make any difference to you?

16. What do your friends / family think of the Cascio songs / album?

17. Why would Michael’s family and kids, the same people who are benefiting from the whole deal, question the vocals? Do you think they’d risk messing up the deal if they were profiting from the album sales?

18. If Michael recorded the songs, why for the first time in 50 years would he sing his name over and over in Breaking News?

19. Why were the Cascio songs the first to leak from the album?

20. Do you think Melodyne could actually do what it did to Michael’s vocals?

21. Why do you think it was so important to use Melodyne on Michael’s vocals for the 1st time in 50 years?

22. If the Cascio songs were so important to be included on the album, why would they need Melodyne to begin with?

23. Besides the Oprah show, why hasn’t the Estate / Sony tried to address the whole thing any further as to why die hard fans would refuse to by Michael’s first album in 10 years?

24. How come we can’t see the proof Sony did with the forensic musicologists?

25. Through this whole process, did you ever change your mind, convincing yourself that it was in fact Jason (or another impersonator)? Has your opinion changed on any of this?

I think that’s about it really. Like I said, I didn’t make this list for members to discuss, I made it so members, who are willing, can answer all the questions and move on. I wanna know how you sincerely feel about this whole thing.

Have fun.

 

[kopwatcher]

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now? Tired.

2. Do you think Michael deserved this? Yes. He had it coming (!)

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this? He doesn't think anything.

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks? No.

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement? I don't care.

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time? N/A

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album? No.

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs? Everyone is profiting in a business sense. It's all about profit.

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault? If he did, they'd be on the album.

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place? I don't know. I think Sony just like scewing with us.

11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael? I don't know.

12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album? Why does he think MJ is alive?

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True? The evidence seems to suggest so.

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial? No idea.

15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly? I guess it's Sony's way of adding insult to insult.

 

[L.T.D]

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now?
I'm kind of past it, I dont listen to the 4 Cascio tracks. I feel there is nothing we can do at this point but I do hope the truth comes out eventually. Of course.

2. Do you think Michael deserved this?
Of course not, if they were going to do posthumous releases then they could of at least done it in a way that is respectful to Michael and his fans.

No matter what anyones opinion is, these tracks clearly should not have been on the album and are insulting to a perfectionist like Michael.

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?

If he was here then he would be disgusted, but this wouldn't be happening if he were here of course.

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?
I pre-ordered the album before we heard Breaking News and then wanted to cancel after I heard Breaking News. However I just thought it would be best to recieve the album and sell it on ebay, as cancelling it seemed like such a chore. However it then didn't arrive 2 months after I had pre-ordered it. So then of course I cancelled it and got a refund.

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?
No, I think he may have wrote songs with the Cascio's. If he recorded with them then we are yet to hear anything from it.

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?
I knew it would never be the same, but I expected better than this of course.

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album?
I am hoping it was just a genuine mistake on the part of Sony, one which they couldn't undo.

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?
He may have gotten one big pay cheque, or he may be getting paid bit by bit for however long he stays quiet.

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?
I think it was just a genuine mistake on the part of Sony when they bought the songs from the Cascio's thinking they were MJ's.

11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?

I think they didn't have a hard time telling at first, but now they know...and thats why there has been a massive lack of promotion.

12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?

I dont think he does believe it is Michael. I think it's all about money in his case as well.

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?

In the past yes, I dont think this is what has happened here though.

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?

I think they bought the songs thinking they were Michael, and then found it was too late to go back once they had figured out it wasn't Michael and had already paid for them. Perhaps there was some contract that stated the songs must be included on an album as well. Who knows.

15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?

I dont get what you mean to be honest haha

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

In 1995???? For a song that was released in 1990?
Ok, well, maybe the Cascio will be credited in 5 years then

There's a 1990 registration for the album which simply states the album was released by Geffen and Geffen hired and paid people for the songs (in other words Geffen says they didn't write or sing the songs). The details cannot be seen in public records.

The 1995 registration is actually a document (such as mortgage, trust, loan documents) that lists Michael's music catalog - which means that the song was registered in Michael's name by the time of the document (could be anytime between 1990 and 1995). (again note : it's the first document that I can see that ties Do the Bartman to Michael. There could be previous registration that we cannot see the details in online records such as the song could have been registered under a different name).

((I see later registrations / updates from other artists as well. For example "Springfield soul stew" seems to be a song written in 1967 and the registration was updated in 1991. ))

Again all this shows to me that the song was properly credited to Michael in legal channels.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

There's a 1990 registration for the album which simply states the album was released by Geffen and Geffen hired and paid people for the songs (in other words Geffen says they didn't write or sing the songs). The details cannot be seen in public records.

The 1995 registration is actually a document (such as mortgage, trust, loan documents) that lists Michael's music catalog - which means that the song was registered in Michael's name by the time of the document (could be anytime between 1990 and 1995).

I see later registrations / updates from other artists as well. For example "Springfield soul stew" seems to be a song written in 1967 and the registration was updated in 1991.

Again all this shows me that the song was properly credited to Michael in legal channels.

Well, as I said, maybe in 5 years time or more we'll see the Cascio tracks related documents that'll pop up with due contracts and signatures.

Anyway, how about the fact that Teddy claims MJ sings the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks and in the same time he claims that MJ is alive. If he can he be trusted for the tracks, he can be trusted for what he says about Michael.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

There's a 1990 registration for the album which simply states the album was released by Geffen and Geffen hired and paid people for the songs (in other words Geffen says they didn't write or sing the songs). The details cannot be seen in public records.

The 1995 registration is actually a document (such as mortgage, trust, loan documents) that lists Michael's music catalog - which means that the song was registered in Michael's name by the time of the document (could be anytime between 1990 and 1995). (again note : it's the first document that I can see that ties Do the Bartman to Michael. There could be previous registration that we cannot see the details in online records such as the song could have been registered under a different name).

((I see later registrations / updates from other artists as well. For example "Springfield soul stew" seems to be a song written in 1967 and the registration was updated in 1991. ))

Again all this shows to me that the song was properly credited to Michael in legal channels.

But the album WAS released in 1990/91 period, so it is logical that it was updated around the same period. It is not as if the song was first released then credited as in "Do the Bartman" case.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Anyway, how about the fact that Teddy claims MJ sings the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks and in the same time he claims that MJ is alive. If he can he be trusted for the tracks, he can be trusted for what he says about Michael.

I listened to his first radio interview in which he talked about Elvis and his legacy being kept alive and Michael and his legacy being killed (over and over again) by this controversy and fake vocal talk by his relatives. He made a point/promise about keeping Michael alive. My understanding he means that by "alive", he doesn't mean "literally" alive.

But the album WAS released in 1990/91 period, so it is logical that it was updated around the same period. It is not as if the song was first released then credited as in "Do the Bartman" case.

see bold parts

There's a 1990 registration for the album which simply states the album was released by Geffen and Geffen hired and paid people for the songs (in other words Geffen says they didn't write or sing the songs). The details cannot be seen in public records.

The 1995 registration is actually a document (such as mortgage, trust, loan documents) that lists Michael's music catalog - which means that the song was registered in Michael's name by the time of the document (could be anytime between 1990 and 1995). (again note : it's the first document that I can see that ties Do the Bartman to Michael. There could be previous registration that we cannot see the details in online records such as the song could have been registered under a different name).

for example "Hollywood tonight" song is registered as "hollywood" which will probably get updated. Michael could have registered the song with "song number 1" name and later updated it - which is all completely fine as copyright registrations do not depend on the name but depend to the submitted content.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I listened to his first radio interview in which he talked about Elvis and his legacy being kept alive and Michael and his legacy being killed by this controversy and fake vocal talk by his relatives. He made a point about keeping Michael alive. My understanding he means that by "alive", he doesn't mean "literally" alive.

Umm, no, he meant literally alive in order to be away from the public eye.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Umm, no, he meant literally alive in order to be away from the public eye.

listen to his first radio interview. not his twitter posts. (he did start to pull people's leg on twitter after some time, playing to the hoax but that wasn't his stand all along).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

listen to his first radio interview. not his twitter posts. (he did start to pull people's leg on twitter after some time, playing to the hoax but that wasn't his stand all along).

Well listen to his answer if you don't believe me:

[youtube]CVJRd5tlIRM&feature=autoplay&list=PL0A0E2D6DE5B81DA8&index=37&playnext=2[/youtube]

So basically we come to the fact that it's easier to fake death than the tracks, which is quite difficult to swallow.

 

[botdf]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Dee mimed for years on stage and in videos to E-type's biggest hits, and she never actually sang a word of any of those songs on any of his albums. But everyone knew most of the songs were sung by Nana. This didn't make it "bad", people just didn't care, in fact they enjoyed watching Dee dance on stage. It happens all the time in business.

 

[Tom]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Trying to justify legally what is clear beyond belief to the ears is a waste of time. There's no need for it.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Trying to justify legally what is clear beyond belief to the ears is a waste of time. There's no need for it.

In order to prove that it is not MJ on those songs, all angles must be examined, even the legal ones. These latter just showed that fraud and fake vocals and lack of credits, or supposed aliases are possible ways of registering things, so it only confirms that even the legal side isn't sufficient to convince that those tracks are fake or genuine.

Especially when you have the producer who claims that MJ is alive, which means that MJ would have faked his death. In otherterms, legally speaking, it is drastically way more difficult to fake death than some tracks.

 

[mehdiblanket]

Re: A List of Questions Regarding the Cascio Tracks

l hope this thread won't be closed ,l want to answer this question
Unfortunately it's time to sleep now.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now?
Indifferent, because Michael has nothing to prove.

2. Do you think Michael deserved this?
No.

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?
Must be laughing at all of this.

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?
Yes, 3 times.

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?
Not the three tracks.

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?
I 've been a fan since Thriller and Bad era.


7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album?
Hundreds (according to the reports in the newspapers for years)


8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?
Might be, but not necessarily. He might have received a certain amount of money, while the companies involved would benefit from the sales and copyright.

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault?
I doubt that Michael wouldn't keep any trace of the recorded songs. So if he recorded them, some traces must be on his hard drives or in the vault.

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?
Sell more fakes on the future projects and generate easy money.


11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?
They have hard time as probably many of the businessmen are not MJ's fans. They however care for the image of the company. Unless there is someone there that is seeking a personal vendetta, I don't think that they are out to get Michael.


12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?
By claiming it is Michael he would be trusted by the companies for further projects.

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?
Some people yes. Michael became too powerful and they tried to destroy him, first by false allegations, then by making many artists turning their backs on him. He was unwillingly isolated and unfairly ridiculed by the biased media. Ultimately he got murdered (in)directly (the pressure was heavy).

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?
To gain money. It was an investment for them.


15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?
The point is, it is NOT Michael. Lyrics are simple echo and poor attempt to ressemble MJ's previous lyrics. There is nothing "new" in Breaking News.

 

[azsummergirl]

LOL this thread is totally going to be closed . . . but i'll give it a go:

Here we go:

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now?
<b>Disgusted, but not that surprised.</b>
2. Do you think Michael deserved this?
<b>OF COURSE NOT. Michael&#8217;s legacy deserves only the best. Because he IS the best.</b>
3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?
<b>I think michael would be very upset that his fans had to go through this. But honestly, michael probably has more important things to worry about (from heaven . . .)</b>

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?
<b>unfortunately, yes. I couldn&#8217;t figure out how to cancel my order my order from the official michaeljackson site after I heard BN.</b>

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?
<b>undecided. i really don&#8217;t know.</b>

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?
<b>This release was exciting, but it never really felt the same anyway without michael here, so it didn&#8217;t &#8220;shatter my dreams&#8221;</b>

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can&#8217;t put together a solid 10 song album?
<b>ya, that&#8217;s a little concerning. I&#8217;m sure some HOT stuff still exists in the vaults (sttr, blue gangsta, and dykwyca proves that). I ttoally believe michael when he says he&#8217;s written hundreds of songs. I just don&#8217;t know how much he&#8217;s actually recorded</b>

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?
<b>Abso-f*ckin-lutely.</b>

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault?
<b>Unusable . . . or: Released (possibly wbss08). </b>

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?
<b>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$</b>
11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it&#8217;s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?
<b>yes, they probably have a hard time determining michael or not michael. They don&#8217;t know his voice like we do, they&#8217;re just businessmen/women. And no, I doubt they care. If they do, they&#8217;re not showing it. If they cared this wouldn&#8217;t have happened.</b>
12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?
<b>teddy is freakin crazy. I&#8217;m sorry, I don&#8217;t feel bad saying it. He&#8217;s lost his ever-loving-mind. I lost all respect for him when he started calling mj fans &#8220;sluts&#8221; on his twitter. Seriously? And quite honestly, if you read between the lines of a lot of his tweets, they&#8217;re not consistent.</b>

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I&#8217;ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?
<b>I believe it. I really do. A lot of people were out to get michael, all the time. That&#8217;s what happens when you&#8217;re rich and powerful and special. EVEN if it wasn&#8217;t true (which it is) michael truly believed it was true.</b>

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?
<b>I don&#8217;t think they knew the tracks were fake. They probably made their money back any way. And who knows how much they paid for the songs. The 250mill contract was for the 10 projects. And they will DEFINITELY make their money&#8217;s worth for that. Bad tour DVD will sell like . . . insane. And that cirque tour is going to mean big bucks for them.</b>

15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn&#8217;t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it&#8217;s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn&#8216;t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?
<b>Michael&#8217;s not on the tracks. I won&#8217;t even entertain that question. This is very much along the lines of &#8220;it doesn&#8217;t sound like michael so it has to be michael&#8221; argument. I don&#8217;t buy it, it makes no sense to me.</b>

THANKS! That was fun. I like that. But how come we get less questions?! LOL

 

[Arklove]

For people who believe it&#8217;s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now? Disgusted. But it's not about me, it's about Michael

2. Do you think Michael deserved this? Obviously not

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this? He'd be horrified, although of course this wouldn't be happening if he was here.

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks? Yes. I had hope it was a PR stunt. Now I just want to smash the CD into a trillion pieces.

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement? Probably, but not the ones on the album.

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time? N/A

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can&#8217;t put together a solid 10 song album? I believe he recorded MANY songs that could have been used.

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs? Of course.

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault? I don't know.

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place? Money. Isn't it always?

11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it&#8217;s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael? I believe they all know it's not Michael. I don't think they care, no. I don't know if they are out to 'get him', but it's likely.

12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album? I don't think he believes it's Michael. With all his scattered tweets that make no sense, he's already humiliating himself.

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I&#8217;ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True? Absolutely.

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial? Money, investment..

15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn&#8217;t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it&#8217;s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn&#8216;t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly? Those aren't Michael Jackson's vocals.

 

[love is magical]

1. How are you feeling right now?

Disheartened. Frustrated. Can't believe all the anticipatations come down to this mess.

2. Do you think Michael deserved this?

Of course not. These tracks are slap to his face.

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?

I don't know. He's too intelligent.

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?

Yes, I bought two copies. I had hope that the final versions on the album sound more like Michael. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?

May be. I can't rule out the possibility.

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?

I never expect this album to be as big as HIStory. Still, I expect something better.

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album?

Not at all. It's common knowledge that Michael over-recorded over the years. Michael said it himself in numerous occasion. Sony didn't put together a solid album because Sony wants to stretch the number of future releases.

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?

Of course. Everybody from the impersonator, to the Cascios, to Teddy Riley, to Sony, to the Estate.

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault?

Definitely not destroyed.

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?

Money. People lie for it, spy for it, kill for it, die for it.

11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?

Possibly. The executives who sit in the corner offices at Sony's headquarter aren't necessarily more familiar with Michael's voice. They don't care. They care the bottom line.


12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?

I don't know what Teddy's thinking.

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?

True. Michael became too rich and powerful. Also, his childlike character and innocence made him an easy target.

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?

How much did the Estate paid for the songs? Financially, the decision to include the Cascio tracks is a right decision. It paves the way for more albums of doubtful materials to come. The general public doesn't seem to care. For a posthumus release and an economical album of ten songs, this album has performed very well. Who else can have a platinum album in numerous countries in the world? Only Michael Jackson and some of the biggest stars at the moment.

Artiscally, this ablum is a failure.


15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?

Breaking News is horrible. They try way too hard and fail miserably.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

listen to his first radio interview. not his twitter posts. (he did start to pull people's leg on twitter after some time, playing to the hoax but that wasn't his stand all along).

He was pulling people's leg by claiming Michael was still alive? He thought that was funny? Did he think the family would find that funny? Talking about Mike being in hiding from 'Monsters'? While promoting this bogus album? Pulling people's legs?

 

[Aprilmay]

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now?

Annoyed tired of waiting for the truth to come out, thinking it will never though

2. Do you think Michael deserved this?

Of course not! lol

3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?

Probably shaking his head and sadden that someone who he thought he was really close too would betray him like this.

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?

No did not buy the album. I bought the songs that I was really diggin off of itunes

5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?

No I dont think he recorded those songs in his basement. Maybe snippets just to test out the songs but no way he sung all songs in its entirety.

6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?

I knew that I would never get to experience the real hype from his albums like, dangerous, history, invincible, but Im okay with that lol, I never expected this album to make me feel like those who have been his fans during those album release either.

7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album?

No, I think they are alot more songs out there and the reason for those songs being put on the album because they were 'new' songs.

8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?

Im not sure. What kind of car is he driving? lol j/k

9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault?

They dont exist lol

10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?

For the Cascio's or the Estate?
I think Cascio's--money!
Estate--they wanted 'new' tracks

11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?

I dont think they cared.

12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?

He's being paid.

13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?

People like who? The Cascio's? I do believe people were out to get Michael but not the the Cascio's, they are just money hungry fools.

14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?

I would love to ask them that. I dont really know.

15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?

In Breaking News? Yeah I thought that was odd and dead give away, also the lyrics were just...didnt sound like something he would write.


Great thread! :yes: Im curious to read the people who believe it is Michael singing on the tracks answers.

 

[DancetoExpress]

For people who believe it’s Jason (or another impersonator)

1. How are you feeling right now?
Disappointed with all this conflict
2. Do you think Michael deserved this?
Definitely not
3. What do you think Michael thinks about all of this?
He's probably upset, but then again, I'd have other worries..
4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks?
No, sorry
5. Do you think Michael even recorded songs in the Cascio basement?
Possibly...
6. People who have become fans after Invincible, did this shatter your dreams, regarding sharing the hype of a new Michael Jackson album for the first time?
I knew the hype couldn't possibly match the past albums
7. Does this give you guys an idea of how many songs Michael left behind if a major company like Sony / Estate can’t put together a solid 10 song album?
I honestly don't know how those fools think. I'm guessing the other songs are in an unusable state or they don't have access to them(permission wise?)
8. Does anybody think Jason (or another impersonator) is profiting from the album since his vocals are on the songs?
Set for life
9. If you think Michael did record songs in the basement, where do you think those songs are now? Destroyed? In a vault?
Locked up in a vault somewhere
10. What do you think is the big reason for wanting to include these songs in the first place?
Couldn't find anything else?
11. Do you think Estate / Sony have a hard time telling if it’s Michael or not? Do you think they care? Do you think they were out to get Michael?
Definitely, I mean just listen to Breaking News.. I don't think they care about the authenticity of the songs as long as they make money. Were they out to get him? Maybe...
12. Why do you think Teddy believes its Michael? Why would a producer like Teddy risk humiliation defending the vocals on this album?
I think he's just in it for the money
13. Do you think people were out to get Michael? I’ve heard Michael mentioning this a few times before he died, that people were trying to take advantage of him and they were out for his money. True?
Anything, anything, anything for money. Lie for it, die for it...
14. Why do you think the Estate paid so much money for these songs, only to try and screw it up by including songs that are controversial?
I doubt they care, they were pretty much guaranteed profit anyways. I mean it's Michael.
15. If Michael is on the tracks, why would they make (Jason / the impersonator) sing his name over and over? Isn’t it kinda strange, that if they want us to believe it’s Michael, to take that part out since we know Michael isn‘t one of those cocky artists who sings his name repeatedly?
Controversy is good in a way, as it draws attention. But it just comes across as fake to me

 

[Hicci]

Re: A List of Questions Regarding the Cascio Tracks

You know people are more likely to answer the questions thinking it is Michael if you hadn't put so much in and make it sound so biased!

 

[samhabib]

Re: A List of Questions Regarding the Cascio Tracks

4. Did you buy the album even though you had thoughts about the 3 tracks? Yes. I had hope it was a PR stunt. Now I just want to smash the CD into a trillion pieces.

I'm so sorry that these scumbags made you feel like that

Thankfully I didn't buy it. Yesterday I got home from work and my son was DESPERATE to watch some Michael Jackson videos. His best friend has the Nintendo Wii game and, because they're so competitive, my son is desperate to learn some new moves. It was a lovely evening He loves Is It Scary, especially when Mike turns into the skeleton. Man... remember when Mike's name was synonymous with quality???

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

He was pulling people's leg by claiming Michael was still alive? He thought that was funny? Did he think the family would find that funny? Talking about Mike being in hiding from 'Monsters'? While promoting this bogus album? Pulling people's legs?

If someone posted that Michael was alive on this forum he/she would be treated as a bad joker, his/her post would be removed or transferred to the conspiracy theory thread. Now from someone who claims that we are expected to believe that the Cascio tracks are real. I'd rather believe that MJ is alive than that the cascio tracks are real.

 

[deano]

You know people are more likely to answer the questions thinking it is Michael if you hadn't put so much in and make it sound so biased!

Agreed.

That's why I am not wasting my time. It's just another bash 'Michael' thread trying to disguise itself as something 'innocent'.

I've posed lots of logical questions to the 'doubters' - for instance, regarding how Sony expect to make any money from the album when they are paying out millions to; experts/long time friends/renowned producers/musicians that worked with MJ for 30 years/Jason Malachi (or whoever the 'fans' discovered on Youtube today)/etc., etc. for these dozens (hundreds?) of people to 'keep quiet' about the 'conspiracy' to 'defraud' the worldwide public - but they are never answered logically.

We're supposed to believe the whole world was out to get Michael, and Sony only paid £250 million dollars so they could take the piss out of Michael and his fans?

It's all too absurd for words.