Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

ivy said:
yes it's leading legally and not allowed for over a decade.
Click to expand...

But from the moment Cascio said "it is Michael" it is leading. Why would it be more leading to suggest that it is Malachi?

ivy said:
let me try this way : for example if assume that a crime happens in the apartment next to yours and you hear the perpetrator speak. so if you go to the police and say "I heard him speak and I think it's John down the street" that identification would hold. If the cops made you listen to John speaking and ask you is it John and you say yeah , it won't hold because it's leading and shown to be causing false results.
Click to expand...

But it is not comparable. Saying "I heard him, I think it's John" is not the same as saying "I am sure it is John."

Regarding the voice identification after listening to the recorded voice, even the audio experts cannot give 100% sure answer. So no matter how you look at it, in essence, saying "it IS Michael" is as leading as saying "it IS Malachi".

There is no single evidence that it IS Michael. All we have is Eddie's word and a recorded voice. So all those who claim to hear Michael on that recorded voice without any other evidence is nothing else but leading.

ivy said:
Similarly this voice identification has to stand on his own without introducing of any other people in the mix. For example if you listened to the breaking news streaming and said "that ain't Michael" that's a better identification then a person listening to a comparison video and saying "damn it's jason". because you have come to the independent determination that it isn't Michael but the other person accepted the suggestion that it's jason.

is it clearer now?
Click to expand...

There are two elements here. First element is "it is/it is not Michael" and the second element is nothing else but a logical reaction to the negative answer. If the answer is postitive, i.e. if you say it is Michael, no further questions are to be raised. But if you answer "it is not Michael", then logically you go automatically to the second element which is "Who is it if it is not Michael?" How are you going to answer that without "leading"? It's impossible. So, I don't see why asking "is it Michael?" is not leading and asking "is it Jason in case if it is not MICHAEL?" is leading.

Can you show me a clear reference in the legislation an article that stipulates that I can't ask a question "is it Mr X?" if I believe that I hear Mr X and not Mr Y?

By the way, according to your approach and interpretation of the law "Take me away" and "Opis none" would be genuine Michael's songs only because you can't answer otherwise but "it is Michael" on those tracks. The same goes if I recorded my own song with MJ's copy pastes from other songs and I credit both, Michael and myself. And to make things more difficult I mix the vocals in such a way that it becomes extremely ambiguous and difficult to hear where exactly Michael appears and where exactly I appear on the songs thanks to copy-pasting words in the middle of the sentences.



ivy said:
they did. TJ said he believed it to be Malachi as well. I believe Taryll also mentioned impersonators some being better than the others.
Click to expand...

No, as far as I remember they started talking about Malachi only after the fans heard the song.Prior to that I don't recollect to have read anything involving Malachi with those tracks.

ivy said:
it's clear that the minute they said "it's not Michael" by 1+1 = 2 logic they said it's an impersonator and not surprisingly Malachi is the first one that comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Malachi is not the only impersonator around. There are probably many others that we don't even know. The thing with those vocals on the Cascio songs is that they do sound Malachi and not another impersonator. So it is not a 1+1=2 logic, but 1=1 logic, in other words I hear Jason, so it is Jason.


ivy said:
Regardless It's not really rocket science : not Michael but sounding like Michael = impersonator. an impersonator in USA and even close to NJ/NY area = Malachi. 5th graders can do this logic IMO.
Click to expand...
I disagree again. You are using a deducing logic. Not a single doubter deduce anything here. The doubters hear Jason after hearing the voice not after saying "it is not Michael, therefore it is an impersonator".
 
@Bumper,

any question that implies an answer would be leading. As I said before a person independently listening and saying "It's not Michael" would be better. When you ask "Is it Malachi?" you lead the witness to think that the vocal might be of an impostors. that's leading. I don't know how to explain it better. "Is the vocals authentic or not" is the question in the center of the debate , that's the starting point and that's how it's different. Again what's I'm trying to say it "It is not Michael" answer should be attainable without introducing "How about Malachi?", the minute you include that you are starting to lead. and btw "if it's not Michael then who is it?" wouldn't be a concern in the legal determination of authenticity.

and I did post from an article before remember? asking suspects to say a sentence and ask the witness if the guilty person is among them has been not acceptable since mid 90s. asking malachi and/or any comparison videos would fall under that category.

For example in the milli vanilli fraud case, all that mattered was they didn't sing it. who was the actual singers were totally irrelevant.
in the paula abdul lawsuit all they needed to establish that Paula's voice was on the record. they didn't even deny the other voice. Once she was there if the other singer was used as a supplemental voice didn't matter.
as you can see in the authenticity / fraud cases all that mattered was if Rob and Fab and Paula was singing or not. Rob and Fab wasn't by their admittance, Paula was established by producer testimonies and raw vocals.

I think you are mixing up what we think with how the legal logic works.

ps: also do not mix up genuine versus authentic. that other songs have authentic vocals but they aren't genuine.
 
ivy said:
@Bumper,

any question that implies an answer would be leading. As I said before a person independently listening and saying "It's not Michael" would be better. When you ask "Is it Malachi?" you lead the witness to think that the vocal might be of an impostors. that's leading. I don't know how to explain it better. "Is the vocals authentic or not" is the question in the center of the debate , that's the starting point and that's how it's different. Again what's I'm trying to say it "It is not Michael" answer should be attainable without introducing "How about Malachi?", the minute you include that you are starting to lead. and btw "if it's not Michael then who is it?" wouldn't be a concern in the legal determination of authenticity.

and I did post from an article before remember? asking suspects to say a sentence and ask the witness if the guilty person is among them has been not acceptable since mid 90s. asking malachi and/or any comparison videos would fall under that category.

For example in the milli vanilli fraud case, all that mattered was they didn't sing it. who was the actual singers were totally irrelevant.
in the paula abdul lawsuit all they needed to establish that Paula's voice was on the record. they didn't even deny the other voice. Once she was there if the other singer was used as a supplemental voice didn't matter.
as you can see in the authenticity / fraud cases all that mattered was if Rob and Fab and Paula was singing or not. Rob and Fab wasn't by their admittance, Paula was established by producer testimonies and raw vocals.

I think you are mixing up what we think with how the legal logic works.

ps: also do not mix up genuine versus authentic. that other songs have authentic vocals but they aren't genuine.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you understood me correctly, but I think I was clear. Please read my previous post again. The doubters in general don't ask if it is Michael or not. From the moment they listen tio the tracks they immediately hear Jason. That's as far as I can see not "leading" that's what people hear without wanting to be leading.

So if I take the example of your "John" case, I'd say that the doubters don't hear John, they hear James not by deduction not being John, but simply by listening directly to the voice.

So, all I am asking is where is the article in the legislation that stipulates that it is leading when you immediately hear one voice and not another? In other words, my question still hasn't been answered: why saying it is Michael is not leading and saying it is Jason is leading? There are two groups of people. One group hear Michael the other group hear Jason. None of the two groups has any evidence that it is either Michael or Jason. So how come Jason is leading and not Michael?
 
okay final try

when you file a fraud case , vocals being authentic or not (Michael or not , Paula or not, Rob and Fab or not) becomes the central issue - not a question per se

people need to come to conclusions independently

as I said before a person - let's say Pentum - saying "the minute I heard Breaking news streaming I said to myself this is not Michael, it's Jason" would be okay.

but if you ask "could it be Jason?" and someone says "yes" , that would be leading as they didn't come to that conclusion independently.

similarly for a win you would expect "it's not Michael" determination to hold on it's own without the introduction of Jason - that would show strength.

if we had one expert saying it's Michael and another saying it's Jason, that would only mean it's inconclusive at best and either one being the actual singer is a possibility. so even though you ask " could it be Jason" and get an expert or the analysis say it might be Jason - that's not a win. That's inconclusive either one is possible. That's why I'm saying you would want "it's not Michael" to hold independently without the introduction of Jason.

Does it makes sense now?

if not I'm sorry, I'm too tired to dig any deeper. just chalk this up "agree to disagree" and move on, ok?
 
ivy said:
okay final try

when you file a fraud case , vocals being authentic or not (Michael or not , Paula or not, Rob and Fab or not) becomes the central issue - not a question per se

people need to come to conclusions independently

as I said before a person - let's say Pentum - saying "the minute I heard Breaking news streaming I said to myself this is not Michael, it's Jason" would be okay.

but if you ask "could it be Jason?" and someone says "yes" , that would be leading as they didn't come to that conclusion independently.

similarly for a win you would expect "it's not Michael" determination to hold on it's own without the introduction of Jason - that would show strength.

if we had one expert saying it's Michael and another saying it's Jason, that would only mean it's inconclusive at best and either one being the actual singer is a possibility. so even though you ask " could it be Jason" and get an expert or the analysis say it might be Jason - that's not a win. That's inconclusive either one is possible. That's why I'm saying you would want "it's not Michael" to hold independently without the introduction of Jason.

Does it makes sense now?

if not I'm sorry, I'm too tired to dig any deeper. just chalk this up "agree to disagree" and move on, ok?
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I did not say it is not clear, I just find it not detailed.

For example, how do you come to an independant conclusion that it is Michael if you already ask the question "is it Michael?" Wouldn't it be more logical to ask then "Who is the singer?" rather than "Is it Michael?"

The problem with "is it Michael" question is that you can apply it to anyone who would do copy pastes like in "Take me away" or "Opus nine"? If you ask "is it Michael?" Then of course you'd have the clear answer "yes". However, the truth of the matter is that it's not because you find some vocals that belong to Michael that it automatically means it is a Michael Jackson's song or work. That is another aspect of the affair that we are also complaining about. To us when hearing some strange and out of tune copy pastes it indicates that it's a fabrication, not to mention the ambiguity between who sings what in those songs.

Likewise, you mentioned Fab and Rob regarding the legal aspect, but you are omitting to say that the public was led to believe that they were the singers, just like now we are led to believe that it is Michael on the Cascio tracks.


p.s. All in all what is the proof that it IS Michael? There are no reports nor traces of proof. Only the recorded voice presented as evidence.
 
Last edited:
The video of all 12 Cascio demos had been on youtube all day. I mention it here, and they are gone in 2 mins due to a copyright claim by SME (Sony Music Entertainment). It wasn't jab me for once.
 
StellaJackson said:
The video of all 12 Cascio demos had been on youtube all day. I mention it here, and they are gone in 2 mins due to a copyright claim by SME (Sony Music Entertainment). It wasn't jab me for once.
Click to expand...

Huh... Peculiar.
 
cough cough coughzanyonecoughcancoughcoughtellcoughwherecoughcoughicouldcoughcoughhearthemcough?
 
Y'know, admitting to having tracks like these - especially when we seem to have a spy in our midst - is probably ill-advised.
 
StellaJackson said:
Has it been identified where the adlibs in Black Widow are taken from yet?[/QUOTE

'go on' sounds like it's from D.S. Not sure though....But you know, who cares, cuz all that matters is that the adlibs are SO out of place it's hilarious. I mean, in the first 10 seconds of BW, he goes, 'HA!', 'doggone'..'go on', and 'aow!'...all within a few seconds of each other...So random, it sounds silly and obviously super fabricated....
Click to expand...
 
Here's a little challenge. Put on some headphones and listen to a minute of Keep Your Head Up. Ignore the music and just concentrate on the vocals.

Then listen to a minute of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUp4vDxCXuA&feature=related

Do a minute of each, going back and forth until you get to the end of the songs. Then tell me, with a straight face, that it is two different people. Listen to how the voice gets quieter when he has to hold a note.
 
Arklove said:
StellaJackson said:
Has it been identified where the adlibs in Black Widow are taken from yet?[/QUOTE

'go on' sounds like it's from D.S. Not sure though....But you know, who cares, cuz all that matters is that the adlibs are SO out of place it's hilarious. I mean, in the first 10 seconds of BW, he goes, 'HA!', 'doggone'..'go on', and 'aow!'...all within a few seconds of each other...So random, it sounds silly and obviously super fabricated....
Click to expand...

Yeah I know - and to think this was the song that was supposedly going to prove it's Michael?! It's absolute garbage. A bunch of pasted vocals glued on to an impersonator who can't sing in tune if his life depended on it.
Click to expand...
 
StellaJackson said:
Here's a little challenge. Put on some headphones and listen to a minute of Keep Your Head Up. Ignore the music and just concentrate on the vocals.

Then listen to a minute of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUp4vDxCXuA&feature=related

Do a minute of each, going back and forth until you get to the end of the songs. Then tell me, with a straight face, that it is two different people. Listen to how the voice gets quieter when he has to hold a note.
Click to expand...

You know, it PAINS me to have to type in to YT 'Michael Jackson - Keep Your Head Up' :mello:
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
For example, how do you come to an independant conclusion that it is Michael if you already ask the question "is it Michael?" Wouldn't it be more logical to ask then "Who is the singer?" rather than "Is it Michael?"
Click to expand...

as I said once a person files a fraud lawsuit, it automatically brings the issue at hand to if the vocals are Michael's or not. Like I said that's not a question, that's the topic at hand. like hypothesis logic fraud = vocals aren't Michael's. alternative hypothesis : It's Michael. Understand it now? That's the issue at hand not a question. and as you can also see "if not michael then who?" isn't the issue. therefore Michael or not should stand independently and Malachi or anyone else for that matter is leading.

The problem with "is it Michael" question is that you can apply it to anyone who would do copy pastes like in "Take me away" or "Opus nine"? If you ask "is it Michael?" Then of course you'd have the clear answer "yes". However, the truth of the matter is that it's not because you find some vocals that belong to Michael that it automatically means it is a Michael Jackson's song or work.
Click to expand...

again authentic versus genuine is two different issues.

That is another aspect of the affair that we are also complaining about. To us when hearing some strange and out of tune copy pastes it indicates that it's a fabrication, not to mention the ambiguity between who sings what in those songs.
Click to expand...

there's nothing illegal / fake or fraud in copy pasted adlibs from previous MJ vocals. you might not be happy with the production liberties taken but not everything is illegal or fraud. for example paula abdul lawsuit as a precedent showed that overlaying vocals of another singer to create the lead vocal track while crediting that singer as backvocals are acceptable. obviously in that case the lead vocals aren't 100% Paula Abdul and the second lead is minimize to back vocal so therefore the song and the production liberties are questionable but the act isn't illegal and the song isn't fake /fraud.

Likewise, you mentioned Fab and Rob regarding the legal aspect, but you are omitting to say that the public was led to believe that they were the singers, just like now we are led to believe that it is Michael on the Cascio tracks.
Click to expand...

not proven in this instance.


p.s. All in all what is the proof that it IS Michael? There are no reports nor traces of proof. Only the recorded voice presented as evidence.
Click to expand...

we might not have seen it but it doesn't mean there's not proof. reported handwritten lyrics, text messages, work tapes, 3rd party verification and expert reports are possible evidence.
 
Every single Cascio song contains ad libs from other genuine songs. I remember when Pentum posted Monster, you could clearly hear in the middle of the song Michael's shout from 2Bad short movie and I think I found a sound effect from Threatened which was shorter than a second, yet there to mislead people, to make it more Michaelish.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Every single Cascio song contains ad libs from other genuine songs. I remember when Pentum posted Monster, you could clearly hear in the middle of the song Michael's shout from 2Bad short movie and I think I found a sound effect from Threatened which was shorter than a second, yet there to mislead people, to make it more Michaelish.
Click to expand...

That shout is very prominent in the demo version. The deceit on display in these songs is appalling.
 
omg, it's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't figure out where the 'aowww!' is from in BW...I'm so close though! lol gimme a second ...

EDIT: I think it's Heartbreaker....Gotta be...

Yup...at 4:17

[YouTube]Qw3p6u-5Zug[/YouTube]
 
Arklove said:
omg, it's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't figure out where the 'aowww!' is from in BW...I'm so close though! lol gimme a second ...

EDIT: I think it's Heartbreaker....Gotta be...
Click to expand...

Correct. The majority of the pasted stuff is from Invincible. The first whoo on BN is from YRMW. You can even hear the YRMW music in the background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top