Michael - The Great Album Debate

[love is magical]

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

^
to:
1. and where did you got that info?
3. How many of the will.I.Am songs are if any registered?
4: yes he did. the early demos of BJ.

1. It's widely reported that there are a total of 12 songs recordied in the Cascios basement. So far, three of them are released officially and two of them are leaked. All five songs are finished with complete lyrics and harmonies. Hollywood Tonight, on the contrary, sounds obviously incomplete. Michael mumbled some lyrics and recorded only two verses, a chorus and no bridge. After years of collaborating with will.i.am, they didn't have an output of 12 songs. In four months, at a basement studio, Michael completed 12 full songs? It gets me into thinking.

3. I don't know how many will.i.am collaborations are registered. My point is it may not be unusual for Michael not to register one song, two songs, three songs, four songs or even five songs, but a total of 12 songs??? If he's serious enough to record 12 songs, then he probably thought about copyright issues. However, none of the Cascio tracks are registered; although the melodies and lyrics are almost complete. It gets me into thinking.

4. I respectfully disagree with you that the demo of Billie Jean sounds bad. It sounds unmistakenly Michael Jackson. I have no problem in recognizing that distinctive voice.

 

[ivy]

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

What is the relevance of the 'poor man's copyright' in this case? You haven't got a document to prove that Michael Jackson knew ANYTHING about these songs. So what is the relevance of your question?

It means that "just because we can't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen". It could have very well happened but couldn't be seen by a google search.

Sam did bring up a good point. Did Michael, in his life, fail to register a total of twelve songs recorded with one producer?

brad buxter registered 19 songs in december 2009, one of them which is "hollywood tonight" , so yeah Michael left around 19 songs not registered with another producer as well.

Also, "poor man's copyright" is indeed irrelevant. Did Michael utilize "poor man's copyright" method to register any one of his songs in his life?

Perhaps he did perhaps he didn't. Nobody could tell either way. It was a point to show some things aren't as "impossible" as samhabib portrays to be

I always think Michael was very conscious about copyright issue. First, he's an owner of one of the largest music publishing company. He knew the value of intellectual right. Second, he was sued left and right all the time over music authorship. He knew the importance of obtaining proof of music copyright.

again see 19 songs registered by brad buxter, other songs being registered by bill botrell.

see the following from leslihu about January 2011 song registrations so still previously unregistered song by Michael is turning up left and right.

MJ recorded "For The World" with Theron Feemster in 2009 in Los Angeles.

And "All In Your Name" with Barry Gibb in 2003 in his Miami home.

As well two another songs has been registered recently under "Beatbox 2010" and "Shut Up And Dance". Both songs has been recorded with Eric Kirkland and Prince Michael Durham sometime in 2009.

I just found another MJ and Paul Anka collaboration named "It don't matter to me".

The song seems to be copyrighted under MJ's and Anka's name late last year.

so once again it shows that
1) Michael left around unregistered songs for whatever reason and
2) no or late registration doesn't automatically equal to questionable songs.


edit: I checked the copyright records Brad Buxter registered 19 songs that he did with Michael in December 2009.

 

[samhabib]

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

5- He probably didn't write the lyrics. And they're run-of-the-mill pop lyrics, like much of what MJ has written or sung.

It just gets more and more ridiculous. In order to claim the bullshit Cascio songs are Michael Jackson songs, you demean his whole career? Absolutely unbelievable.

Yeah, yeah... Michael Jackson... run-of-the-mill...

Unbelievable!

 

[samhabib]

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

It means that "just because we can't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen". It could have very well happened but couldn't be seen by a google search.

Translation: You have no proof. Hence, it was completely irrelevant to mention the 'poor man's copyright'.

 

[love is magical]

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

1- Why do you say the Cascio track are complete? First of all, we've only heard 5 of them, and the fact they were the ones considered for release could indicate they are the 5 most complete ones. Secondly, those 5 songs do indeed sound incomplete, with their lack of ad-libs and the need to use a backing vocalist for choruses. And doesn't "All I Need" only feature like one verse, repeated twice?

2- MJ was living with his whole family with the Cascios, free of charge : he probably felt he owed them the favor. If I spent 4 months at your place with my 3 kids, eating your food, I'd also feel like I owe you one.

3- Absolutely : like I said before, a lot of MJ songs were only registered after his death, or when products like TUC were released. And even now, songs like STTR and the Will.I.Am tracks are not registered.

4- He doesn't sound that bad. Listen to KYHU again. The reason MJ hums the melody instead of actually singing the words on demos like "In the Back" or "Beautiful Girl" is because he wrote those songs, but hadn't finished the lyrics. But the Cascio tracks were probably written by Cascio and James Porte themselves. So he had all the lyrics.

5- He probably didn't write the lyrics. And they're run-of-the-mill pop lyrics, like much of what MJ has written or sung.

2. So, instead of paying his friends rent, Michael paid by singing in his friend's amateur studio? Since when Michael lost his dignity in such a way? I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous excuse I've heard.

4. So, Eddie Cascio and James Porte wrote all the lyrics. Michael sang the whole songs. And, these are still considered early guide demos?

5. Could you provide a list of Michael Jackson songs with "run-of-mill" pop lyrics?

 

[ivy]

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

speaking of copyrights - look what I have just found

MJAngeliksonStudios.

Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu001042269 / 2010-09-27
Title: MJAngeliksonStudios.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Date of Creation: 2007
Authorship on Application: Edward Cascio; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)

 

[kreen]

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

It just gets more and more ridiculous. In order to claim the bullshit Cascio songs are Michael Jackson songs, you demean his whole career? Absolutely unbelievable.

Yeah, yeah... Michael Jackson... run-of-the-mill...

Unbelievable!

In all honesty, the 5 Cascio tracks are better than a lot of MJ's released output, especially the stuff on Invincible. So whoever is singing them, Eddie Cascio came up with better material than the likes of Rodney Jerkins and Babyface; this alone makes him OK in my book. Burt Bacharach even considered All I Need worthy of his efforts, which says a lot.

I think it's all psychological : you're so angry at the Cascios and at the Cascio tracks, since you think they're fake, that you see them as much worse than they really are.

You talked of a parallel universe earlier. In a parallel universe, had those 5 songs come out on Invincible, you'd be praising them and calling them among the best on the album. It's all psychological.

 

[samhabib]

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

speaking of copyrights - look what I have just found

MJAngeliksonStudios.

Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VAu001042269 / 2010-09-27
Title: MJAngeliksonStudios.
Description: Electronic file (eService)
Date of Creation: 2007
Authorship on Application: Edward Cascio; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: photograph(s)

Ahhhh... some photos... just in time for their book. Disgusting leeches.

 

[samhabib]

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

In all honesty, the 5 Cascio tracks are better than a lot of MJ's released output

I keep thinking that I've seen it all. And then you post something as jaw-dropping as this.

Astonishing. Truly astonishing.

 

[Arklove]

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

In all honesty, the 5 Cascio tracks are better than a lot of MJ's released output, especially the stuff on Invincible.

W.T.F. ooooh man...

 

[kreen]

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

2. So, instead of paying his friends rent, Michael paid by singing in his friend's amateur studio? Since when Michael lost his dignity in such a way? I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous excuse I've heard.

4. So, Eddie Cascio and James Porte wrote all the lyrics. Michael sang the whole songs. And, these are still considered early guide demos?

5. Could you provide a list of Michael Jackson songs with "run-of-mill" pop lyrics?

2- It's not ridiculous at all; in fact, it makes complete sense. Michael Jackson spends 4 months in a house. With a studio. The people living with him in the house are musicians. And you're telling me it's ridiculous he would record some stuff?

4- Um, why not? Again, I just don't see why you think all those points I raised are so unbelievable. Eddie Cascio said, "hey MJ, I have all those songs." And MJ said, "alright, we'll do a take or two". And the resulting takes were kept, in order to be reworked, or just kept in the vaults, or just used as guide vocals later on for full-on recordings in a studio.

5- Yeah, I'm not falling for that : no matter what lyric I bring up, you'll say it's actually genius. Suffice it to say that I don't think as MJ as a first-class lyricist, and the lyrics on all 5 Cascio tracks are, to my ears, neither better nor worse than most pop lyrics. I'm listening to Get on the Floor as I type : "I like the way you shake that thing, girl, especially." Yeah, real poetry-like...

 

[kreen]

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

Ahhhh... some photos... just in time for their book. Disgusting leeches.

Looks like you've just been owned twice today...

 

[ivy]

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

Ahhhh... some photos... just in time for their book. Disgusting leeches.

from the name it seems like (of course can't be sure).. photos.. from 2007.. from studio

are u going to call them names if they go out to give u the "proof" that you wanted?

 

[teli-mj]

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

In all honesty, the 5 Cascio tracks are better than a lot of MJ's released output, especially the stuff on Invincible. So whoever is singing them, Eddie Cascio came up with better material than the likes of Rodney Jerkins and Babyface; this alone makes him OK in my book. Burt Bacharach even considered All I Need worthy of his efforts, which says a lot.

I think it's all psychological : you're so angry at the Cascios and at the Cascio tracks, since you think they're fake, that you see them as much worse than they really are.

You talked of a parallel universe earlier. In a parallel universe, had those 5 songs come out on Invincible, you'd be praising them and calling them among the best on the album. It's all psychological.

I have been reading lots of your comments recently and i really wonder. If you have such a bad opinion about Michael,his song writting,songs etc why the hell do you keep bother with him? I mean, when people are fan of someone they usually admire or at least like something about that person? You seem not to like anything about the Mike. What is it? Do you like to upset the people who actually like him?

 

[samhabib]

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

from the name it seems like (of course can't be sure).. photos.. from 2007.. from studio

are u going to call them names if they go out to give u the "proof" that you wanted?

Get this clear - I don't want the Cascios to provide any proof. I don't want Sony to provide any proof. I don't want Teddy Riley to provide any proof. Because there's not ONE THING that they could bring to the table that will change my mind on these abominations. Is that clear? Good. So don't tell me that I have EVER requested any proof. There is no proof, as far as I'm concerned, because the proof is in the audio.

Tell me how a photograph is going to prove who is on the audio track? Please... I'd love to know.

And anyone who profits at the death of a 'friend' by selling them out is a leech. In my opinion.

 

[samhabib]

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

Looks like you've just been owned twice today...

Put some glasses on and look again.

 

[kreen]

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

I have been reading lots of your comments recently and i really wonder. If you have such a bad opinion about Michael,his song writting,songs etc why the hell do you keep bother with him? I mean, when people are fan of someone they usually admire or at least like something about that person? You seem not to like anything about the Mike. What is it? Do you like to upset the people who actually like him?

I'm a huge MJ fan, dude, I wouldn't be here if I wasn't. But do I think all of his stuff is great? Of course not : he released some clunkers.

 

[love is magical]

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

2- It's not ridiculous at all; in fact, it makes complete sense. Michael Jackson spends 4 months in a house. With a studio. The people living with him in the house are musicians. And you're telling me it's ridiculous he would record some stuff?

4- Um, why not? Again, I just don't see why you think all those points I raised are so unbelievable. Eddie Cascio said, "hey MJ, I have all those songs." And MJ said, "alright, we'll do a take or two". And the resulting takes were kept, in order to be reworked, or just kept in the vaults, or just used as guide vocals later on for full-on recordings in a studio.

5- Yeah, I'm not falling for that : no matter what lyric I bring up, you'll say it's actually genius. Suffice it to say that I don't think as MJ as a first-class lyricist, and the lyrics on all 5 Cascio tracks are, to my ears, neither better nor worse than most pop lyrics. I'm listening to Get on the Floor as I type : "I like the way you shake that thing, girl, especially." Yeah, real poetry-like...

1. I'm not saying it's ridiculous that he would record some stuff in a basement studio. I meant it's ridiculous for you to suggest that Michael recorded in that basement because he felt he owed his friends rent and cost of food, so he paid by singing. This is demeaning. Your suggesion (the Cascios provided Michael and his kids shelter and food; therefore, Michael provided them service) degrades Michael to level of prostitude.

2. We all heard the early version of Dangerous, the early version of the Girl is Mine, and This Is It, they all sound unmistakenly Michael. Michael might not sing all out, his vocals were still excellent. So, the Cascios demos are not as rough as people suggest, how come the quality is beyond recognizable bad.

3. If you feel so strongly that Michael Jackson sang ane wrote tons of "run-of-the-mill" lyrics, by all means, provide us a list. Please enlighten us on what you consider great song writing. Get on the Floor is obviously a disco dance track, so what's so bad about liking the way a girl shakes her body. Granted, it's not profound nor poetic. But, it's not as embarassing as telling someone is a monster and an animal.

 

[ivy]

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

Get this clear - I don't want the Cascios to provide any proof. I don't want Sony to provide any proof. I don't want Teddy Riley to provide any proof. Because there's not ONE THING that they could bring to the table that will change my mind on these abominations. Is that clear?

then why are u even on this thread? why are u spending so much time here , reading and responding people if you are not seeking answers and aren't here for the debate, discussion and picking other people's minds? Seriously?

Good. So don't tell me that I have EVER requested any proof. There is no proof, as far as I'm concerned, because the proof is in the audio.

hmm a little while ago:

Translation: You have no proof. Hence, it was completely irrelevant to mention the 'poor man's copyright'.

you DO REQUEST proof. It might not convince you fine but you do mention proof quite often. "you have no proof" or "show me proof" is one of your favorite statements to shot down any legitimate argument.

And anyone who profits at the death of a 'friend' by selling them out is a leech. In my opinion.

and anyone that cannot prove those "profiting" and "selling out" before labeling them is doing defamation / libel /slander. and adding "in my opinion" doesn't make your insults any more acceptable.

 

[Roosje]

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

But, it's not as embarassing as telling someone is a monster and an animal.

I think Monster is very telling in the way Michael felt treated by media and haters. He was treated like a monster while at the same time these leeches creeped up on him like monsters themselves. I quite like the double interpretation this song offers and I don't think it's a bad or an un-Michael like lyric at all. Also the distortion of 'Michael Jackson' in Breaking News makes perfect sense to me. It fits the way he heard his own name spewed out by the media in connection to nonsense, while it wasn't about who he was and what he was about at all. It reflects alienation from the self perfectly. What if these songs are proven MJ's? Wouldn't you feel like you insulted him deeply by mocking these lyrics? Even if I was hesitant about what I hear in those songs I wouldn't dare stating as a fact that these songs are 'embarrasing'. I would be so embarrased myself if proven wrong.

 

[ivy]

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

1. I'm not saying it's ridiculous that he would record some stuff in a basement studio. I meant it's ridiculous for you to suggest that Michael recorded in that basement because he felt he owed his friends rent and cost of food, so he paid by singing. This is demeaning. Your suggesion (the Cascios provided Michael and his kids shelter and food; therefore, Michael provided them service) degrades Michael to level of prostitude.

this is a little exaggeration IMO. There are a lot of reasons major artists do such things and it's rarely because of feeling they owe money to people. I have seen people provide back vocals to new comers, do duets, produce songs, take songs from no names - all with no exchange of money - simply to help them in the music industry.

Michael staying there for 4 months and seeing them work on the songs could have easily have said "okay let me help you with the lyrics, production / let me provide you some back vocals/ let me release these songs in my name so that you can get an advantage / make a name in the industry". There's nothing wrong with this and many big artists who stayed humble would do such things.

 

[samhabib]

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

then why are u even on this thread? why are u spending so much time here , reading and responding people if you are not seeking answers and aren't here for the debate, discussion and picking other people's minds? Seriously?*
*


hmm a little while ago:



you DO REQUEST proof. It might not convince you fine but you do mention proof quite often. "you have no proof" or "show me proof" is one of your favorite statements to shot down any legitimate argument.*



and anyone that cannot prove those "profiting" and "selling out" before labeling them is doing defamation / libel /slander. and adding "in my opinion" doesn't make your insults any more acceptable.

Quite easily, find me one quote of mine where I've said 'i want some proof'. Should be easy to do if you claim that I want proof. Me telling you that you have no proof is not a request for proof. You have no proof because there is no proof. Eddie Cascio showing a picture of a pillow on the floor of his basement is not proof of Michael Jackson singing those songs. A non-existant 'poor man's copyright' registration is not proof of*Michael Jackson singing those songs. Saying to Oprah 'it's Michael' is not proof of Michael Jackson singing those songs.

You have no proof. And the audio goes against you. As it sounds nothing like Michael Jackson.

Are you telling me that I can only come on here if I'm unsure? Or if I believe the singer is Michael Jackson? But if I am completely convinced it's not Michael Jackson, I have to answer some questions?*

Insults? I'm sure the pay-off will help them sleep easily. As I said previously, they're no better, in my eyes, than the Arvizos.

 

[samhabib]

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

this is a little exaggeration IMO. There are a lot of reasons major artists do such things and it's rarely because of feeling they owe money to people. I have seen people provide back vocals to new comers, do duets, produce songs, take songs from no names - all with no exchange of money - simply to help them in the music industry.

Michael staying there for 4 months and seeing them work on the songs could have easily have said "okay let me help you with the lyrics, production / let me provide you some back vocals/ let me release these songs in my name so that you can get an advantage / make a name in the industry". There's nothing wrong with this and many big artists who stayed humble would do such things.

A whole lot of hypotheses here. Can I suggest an hypothesis? Eddie played the first of these tracks to Michael... Michael said 'what in God's name is this bullshit??? Turn that shit off now! My ears don't need to hear this crap'... Eddie promised never to play them again. That's more accurate, in my estimation.

 

[love is magical]

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

I think Monster is very telling in the way Michael felt treated by media and haters. He was treated like a monster while at the same time these leeches creeped up on him like monsters themselves. I quite like the double interpretation this song offers and I don't think it's a bad or an un-Michael like lyric at all. Also the distortion of 'Michael Jackson' in Breaking News makes perfect sense to me. It fits the way he heard his own name spewed out by the media in connection to nonsense, while it wasn't about who he was and what he was about at all. It reflects alienation from the self perfectly. What if these songs are proven MJ's? Wouldn't you feel like you insulted him deeply by mocking these lyrics? Even if I was hesitant about what I hear in those songs I wouldn't dare stating as a fact that these songs are 'embarrasing'. I would be so embarrased myself if proven wrong.

If these songs are proven to be Michael's, I wouldn't feel I insulted him for I have never insulted Michael or any other song-writer. What's your meaning of insulting anyway?

First, I have never ever said something like "whoever wrote Monsters and Breaking News are retarded." I did say the songs Monster and Breaking News are horrible. I criticized the songs, the subject matter, not the people who wrote the song. No personal attack whatsoever. There is a huge difference between criticizing the songs and the people who like the songs or wrote the songs.

Second, I didn't mock the lyrics. The lyrics "Monster, he is a monster. He is an animal" is straightforward insulting. We actually had a lengthy discussion on this subject earlier. If someone called you a monster and an animal, what will you say? There is no room for people's interpretation. Calling someone a monster and an animal is diminishing. Had Michael Jackson ever categorized people by the nature of their jobs?

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, to be honest with you. That means my faith in the Estate and the music business will be restored. However, I will never feel embarassed by my opinion. If it's proven these songs are indeed Michael's, I would have no problem in telling Michael that his vocals and lyrics on Breaking News and Monstear are not good.

I love Michael. I love him to pieces. It doesn't mean I have to love everything that he had ever done. I respect his legacy too much.

 

[ivy]

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

You have no proof. And the audio goes against you. As it sounds nothing like Michael Jackson.

nobody (at least in this thread) has any solid proof , we established that months ago.

and I hate to break this to you but sorry your ears aren't acceptable as a undebatable proof either especially when there are other people that hear the songs sound exactly like Michael Jackson. the same is true for the opposite as well.

 

[love is magical]

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

this is a little exaggeration IMO. There are a lot of reasons major artists do such things and it's rarely because of feeling they owe money to people. I have seen people provide back vocals to new comers, do duets, produce songs, take songs from no names - all with no exchange of money - simply to help them in the music industry.

Michael staying there for 4 months and seeing them work on the songs could have easily have said "okay let me help you with the lyrics, production / let me provide you some back vocals/ let me release these songs in my name so that you can get an advantage / make a name in the industry". There's nothing wrong with this and many big artists who stayed humble would do such things.

Ivy, in order to understand why I wrote it's demeaning to suggest Michael recorded in the basement because Michael felt he owed the Cascios, you have to take a look to the post I responded to.

2- MJ was living with his whole family with the Cascios, free of charge : he probably felt he owed them the favor. If I spent 4 months at your place with my 3 kids, eating your food, I'd also feel like I owe you one.

The poser was suggesting Michael stayed in Eddie's house, FREE OF CHARGE and ate his food; so, Michael felt he owed them.

This suggestion, IMHO, is belittling Michael and even the Cascios.

Of course, I totally believe Michael would lend his musical knowledge and connection and help his friend to make a name in the industry because of his humble nature, not because he felt he owed them. I hope you get my point.

 

[samhabib]

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

nobody (at least in this thread) has any solid proof , we established that months ago.

and I hate to break this to you but sorry your ears aren't acceptable as a undebatable proof either especially when there are other people that hear the songs sound exactly like Michael Jackson. the same is true for the opposite as well.

There's not one person on the opposite side who claims that the songs sound just like Michael Jackson. Everyone has an excuse as to why they sound 'different'. No one on here claims that these songs sound like every other Michael Jackson song that they've ever heard. Not in the months that I've been posting, at any rate.

 

[Roosje]

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

If these songs are proven to be Michael's, I wouldn't feel I insulted him for I have never insulted Michael or any other song-writer. What's your meaning of insulting anyway?

First, I have never ever said something like "whoever wrote Monsters and Breaking News are retarded." I did say the songs Monster and Breaking News are horrible. I criticized the songs, the subject matter, not the people who wrote the song. No personal attack whatsoever. There is a huge difference between criticizing the songs and the people who like the songs or wrote the songs.

Second, I didn't mock the lyrics. The lyrics "Monster, he is a monster. He is an animal" is straightforward insulting. We actually had a lengthy discussion on this subject earlier. If someone called you a monster and an animal, what will you say? There is no room for people's interpretation. Calling someone a monster and an animal is diminishing. Had Michael Jackson ever categorized people by the nature of their jobs?

I'll be glad to be proven wrong, to be honest with you. That means my faith in the Estate and the music business will be restored. However, I will never feel embarassed by my opinion. If it's proven these songs are indeed Michael's, I would have no problem in telling Michael that his vocals and lyrics on Breaking News and Monstear are not good.

I love Michael. I love him to pieces. It doesn't mean I have to love everything that he had ever done. I respect his legacy too much.

Insulting to me is disrespecting someone's effort. Not liking it is another thing.

The lyrics of Monster being insulting is puzzling to me though. I interpret it as Michael echoing the words spoken about him, like he's some kind of monster, while at the same time mirroring this image at his perpetrators. Who's haunting who? I think it's quite ingeniously done.

I'm not a blind fan either, not loving everything that he has ever done, but I felt I had to defend these lyrics as they are mocked in this thread regularly and that's a shame as I see them as one of MJ's last gifts.

 

[Jesta]

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

When I first heard "Breaking News", I had no doubt it was MJ. It hardly sounded different to me at all. In all fairness, he sounds pretty typical on these tracks as on tracks like "Hollywood Tonight". Granted, it doesn't sound EXACTLY like MJ from the 90s, but it sounds like new Millennium MJ to me.

... I'm gonna leave now. I've had an EXTREMELY rough couple of days at school with people mocking me about this very person, so I'm going to escape before I get flamed.

 

[Roosje]

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

There's not one person on the opposite side who claims that the songs sound just like Michael Jackson. Everyone has an excuse as to why they sound 'different'. No one on here claims that these songs sound like every other Michael Jackson song that they've ever heard. Not in the months that I've been posting, at any rate.

True. It does sound like him to many though. He's been unique sounding before on other songs. The main difference is that he's not here anymore, so we are left with doubt. But calling the songs fake while excluding other much more probable explanations for this difference is just as unbelievable as some of you find these tracks to be the real deal (for all reasons already mentioned in this thread).