Michael - The Great Album Debate

I guess the point that I'm trying to make that "fabrication" and "imposter" is two totally things is getting lost as the answers I'm getting is focused on "imposter" which might make sense that your main issue has never been the "fabrication" but the "imposter". And giving an inch to the believers with "fabrication" isn't working, it's too late for that. It's impossible to say "Malachi doesn't matter" after you spent 2 years saying "it's 100% Malachi I bet my life on it".

As for the "fabrication" only, I clearly stated that it's a personal choice to like it or hate it. Previous examples have shown that some fans are okay with it and some aren't. And you'll see the industry would refer to it as an approach or a producing liberty (such as they called Eminem produced album as "new" "current") etc, "fabrication" again seems to be a word introduced by Korgex. So yeah some people can be okay with "fabrication" especially if they don't agree with the "fabrication" definition.
 
I guess the point that I'm trying to make that "fabrication" and "imposter" is two totally things is getting lost as the answers I'm getting is focused on "imposter" which might make sense that your main issue has never been the "fabrication" but the "imposter".

As for the "fabrication" only, I clearly stated that it's a personal choice to like it or hate it. And you'll see the industry would refer to it as an approach or a producing liberty (such as they called Eminem produced album as "new" "current") etc, "fabrication" again seems to be a word introduced by Korgex. So yeah some people can be okay with "fabrication" especially if they don't agree with the "fabrication" definition.

It's absolutely two totally different things, and that we both can agree on...Two completely different things is the Cascio song posthumous reality and a BTM, MTS posthumous realities...Those are completely different things...

If we didn't raise hell about the Cascio songs, I doubt the press release for Bad25 would indicate 'Nothing has been added', and we could possibly be in the same boat as we are now - wondering who the hell is singing on those songs because of the liberties they've taken...We spoke up, and at least the BAD25 release isn't promising to be a nightmare. In fact, it's the complete opposite...So it CAN be done...

What I'm trying to say that IF it's Michael, it's still WRONG....They cannot be called MJ songs...If it comes to that extreme that they need to do that much work to make it releasable, then leave it in the vault....No one enjoys a song completely made up of some other vocalists, or copy/pastes of the artist's other work to make it 'releasable'...Tell me, what is the point then? It becomes garbage and a complete waste of time, IMO. But that's what money does, I guess.
 
I guess the point that I'm trying to make that "fabrication" and "imposter" is two totally things is getting lost as the answers I'm getting is focused on "imposter" which might make sense that your main issue has never been the "fabrication" but the "imposter". And giving an inch to the believers with "fabrication" isn't working, it's too late for that. It's impossible to say "Malachi doesn't matter" after you spent 2 years saying "it's 100% Malachi I bet my life on it".

As for the "fabrication" only, I clearly stated that it's a personal choice to like it or hate it. Previous examples have shown that some fans are okay with it and some aren't. And you'll see the industry would refer to it as an approach or a producing liberty (such as they called Eminem produced album as "new" "current") etc, "fabrication" again seems to be a word introduced by Korgex. So yeah some people can be okay with "fabrication" especially if they don't agree with the "fabrication" definition.

Excuse me? Who said that the issue has never been fabrication? What's too late? Don't give too much credit to Korgex. I don't know if you have selective memory or really forget a large part of this discussion in the past years. Jesta called these songs "Frankenstein-ish" long before yesterday. Arky always said she doesn't care if it's Malachi or not. So, she doesn't just say "Malachi doesn't matter" all of a sudden or after Korgnex introduced it. I have talked about the issue of fabricating the Cascio tracks from bascially nothing a long time ago. It has always been an issue and discussion point.

Yes, fabrication and imposter are two different issues. We all can agree on that. And, we also can agree some people are not only okay but also enjoy the fabricated songs. So, just because a group of peole are okay with them and the industry is calling this ugly practice "production liberty" that it's not an issue and is now too late to be discussed?
 
Last edited:
Thank you Grent for this video:

[youtube]f9z3fduz2Nc[/youtube]



Fabrication idea???? Ancient history in this thread:

[youtube]ES3XSXQ0LSg[/youtube]
 
Excuse me? Who said that the issue has never been fabrication? What's too late? Don't give too much credit to Korgex. I don't know if you have selective memory or really forget a large part of this discussion in the past years. Jesta called these songs "Frankenstein-ish" long before yesterday. Arky always said she doesn't care if it's Malachi or not. So, she doesn't just say "Malachi doesn't matter" all of a sudden or after Korgnex introduced it. I have talked about the issue of fabricating the Cascio tracks from bascially nothing a long time ago. It has always been an issue and discussion point.

Yes, fabrication and imposter are two different issues. We all can agree on that. And, we also can agree some people are not only okay but also enjoy the fabricated songs. So, just because a group of peole are okay with them and the industry is calling this ugly practice "production liberty" that it's not an issue and is now too late to be discussed?


Actually I called them Frankensteinesques, and Jesta called them Mecha-Michael. But on the very first page of this thread posted by PCR, so since the very beginning, people complaiend about the fabrication. Here's that very first post on the very first page of this thread:

PCR said:
I really don't understand why on earth they have to add the 3 Cascio tracks when they had other great songs and when they included at least 2 songs we already knew (HMH and ILTWYLM). ANd though HMH is sweet and beutiful, let's agree it's far from classic MJ and it is certainly not strong enough to be a first single. I haven't seen the note of MJ about this for first single yet, I thought I would be in the album booklet..
PCR said:
But there are great songs such as Best of Joy, Much too Soon, Hollywood Tonight and Behind the Mask. The version of ILTWYLM is amazing, I really love it and the intro is just too emotional :cry:

But the mark of the C tracks is still there. I guess this was some kind of experiment for the Estate and Sony. They better learn their lesson and they better do it fast.

In my very personal opinion, and please take is just as that, I would have love having the real MJ tracks as he left them. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Actually I called them Frankensteinish, and Jesta called them Mecha-Michael. But on the very first page of this thread posted by PCR, so since the very beginning, people complaiend about the fabrication. Here's that very first post on the very first page of this thread:



Oopsie... my bad... You and Jesta do look alike. ;)
 
Thank you Grent for this video:

[youtube]f9z3fduz2Nc[/youtube]

Thanks for this. Had it ages ago but it got taken down. The music that he removed is the music that is on the leaked versions as submitted by Cascio. That's what he's referring to when he says they came with music. Also important to remember that Riley did not add any adlibs.
 
Believers have always posed to the doubters: What if it turns out to be Michael? Won't you feel terrible that you accused them of fraud? And most doubters have said that it really doesn't matter whether it was an imposter or fabrication, the fact remains that these songs were tampered with to a point where MJ isn't recognizable. This has been an issue since the beginning. It wasn't introduced recently into thin air. And for the record, I've never banked on the claim that it's absolutely Malachi singing. FORGET him. I am banking on the fact that I don't care WHO it is, I just know it's not MJ. This isn't new, we've discussed this over and over again.

Either way, these songs are fabrications and NOT MJ's work. That's the issue. If it turns out that these songs are Michael, it's not gonna make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside and that I would retract everything I've said. The songs are still abominations.
 
Omg. Bumpy is here!!!! :jumpy:

tumblr_lkfkekp7IF1qb97mi.gif


Lol, thanks for enthusiasm, but I wasn't completely away, I just had nothing to say ;) Nice to see you around. Kiss :)
 
Excuse me?

I'm talking about you and Arklove writing Jason Malachi doesn't matter. He or any other imposter had always mattered and will always matter. I never said fabrication cannot be discussed, it's just too late for the doubters to "give an inch" to the believers and say "let's forget Malachi", we can't forget him, we can't forget the people that bet their lives that it's "100% Malachi". Hope now everyone can understand it. The end. I'm totally done with this topic.

ps: why are you singling me out when Stella also said "I don't think it is besides the point if Jason was used. ". I'm saying the exact same thing. Similarly I'm arguing that imposter vocals is a lot different and have a lot more serious consequences than fabrication.
 
^^ What does it have to do with being 'too late' or not?? What does that even mean? I've always said that from the beginning!

Who the hell knows if it's Jason or not? It's not a fact because we can't prove it. BUT, we can prove the songs are fabricated and we should focus more on that than the use of an imposter. We'd get further that way. I don't know how many other ways I can explain that.
 
^^

good luck on the new focus. sincerely. (and no I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really wishing you all the luck )
 




The Estate's job is not only to make money, but also to promote Michael's legacy. Gaining new fans is important (although I still don't know how releasing highly fabricated songs can attract new fans), but enlightening the public about the true artist Michael Jackson was may be even more important.

IMHO, attempt to "update" Michael's music to suit today's music scene is merely a short-sighted commercial strategy. Today's "club beat" is here today gone tomorrow. I wonder how many people will listen to Pitbull five years from now. Many artists today, from Bieber to Beyonce, have said Michael Jackson is their inspiration. Ironically, people feel the need to "update" Michael's songs, which inspired many, to today's beats.

No, demos don't sell. An album of unfinished demos is never meant to be a best seller or chart topper. But, at this point, do we really need another chart topper? Sometimes, I envy fans of Dylan, Springsteen, Lennon and even Prince. There are so many materials availabe out there that show appreciation of their artistry. The general public still sees Michael as pop act, an entertainer, a sing and dance man, but not a legit artist. I wouldn't be surprised if people still don't know Michael wrote Billie Jean. So, no, demos don't sell. But, a collection of demos with a booklet that contains some kind of explanation of Michael's role in the development of each song will be a nice addition to Michael's discography. So, when a young fan decides to learn more about Michael, instead of finding the endless number of greatest hit albums and remixes, he or she has the choice to hear some raw and rare materials.

Nowadays, we tend to measure success with dollar sign. The more money the more successful. Joe Vogel was right when he said Michael was misunderstood. Many people thought Michael was a material person who was obsessed about sales. The truth is that he wanted his albums to sell because he wanted his messages to reach out to as many people as possible. He wanted to be recognized as an artist.

It's difficult to find a balancing act between making money and attaining a mission. It takes courage and extraordinary vision to achieve greatness.


Couldn't have said it any better. Bravo!
 
@ivy ...Thanks, but it's not a new focus if you've been paying attention to the last 2 years ;)
 
I'm talking about you and Arklove writing Jason Malachi doesn't matter. He or any other imposter had always mattered and will always matter. I never said fabrication cannot be discussed, it's just too late for the doubters to "give an inch" to the believers and say "let's forget Malachi", we can't forget him, we can't forget the people that bet their lives that it's "100% Malachi". Hope now everyone can understand it. The end. I'm totally done with this topic.

ps: why are you singling me out when Stella also said "I don't think it is besides the point if Jason was used. ". I'm saying the exact same thing. Similarly I'm arguing that imposter vocals is a lot different and have a lot more serious consequences than fabrication.

The discussion in this thread has never focused on just one particular issue. Fans' opinion fall onto different points of a spectrum. Some are sure Malachi was involved. Some are not so sure. Some believe the songs are fabrications of very scratchy vocals. As a matter of fact, as Bumpy pointed out, PCR called these tracks "bad experiment" on the very first page of this thread. So, the concept of song fabrication is not introduced by Korgnex like you said in your previous post. This is simply a misstatement.

So, what if both Arky and I think Malachi doesn't matter. So what? As far as I can remember, neither Arky nor I claims to be the leading voice of doubters. Arky and I didn't ask Stella to forget about Malachi. Obviously, his opinion is further away on the spectrum than mine. My point is that the discussions on song fabrication and imposter are not mutually exclusive. It's not too late to discuss anything. What does that mean anyway? I'm not aware that there is a statue of limitation on discussion on a online forum.

I don't know what you want me to understand. Frankly, I lost count on the times you said you are done with this topic. May I suggest you to not say "the end" too soon?

I didn't single you out. Stop thinking that people are aiming at you or are always seeking ways to attack you. What you said and what Stella are simply not the same. He didn't claim it's too late to discuss the issue of fabrication nor did he suggest it's a new concept introduced by Korgnex.


^^

good luck on the new focus. sincerely. (and no I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really wishing you all the luck )

Whatever. I'm tired of repeating that song fabrication is not a new focus. It's been mention almost 2000 pages before.

Anyway, thanks for the good wishes.
 
reading is crucial

So, the concept of song fabrication is not introduced by Korgnex like you said in your previous post. This is simply a misstatement.

I never said that. I said

There's a huge difference of "falsification" Korgex defined

and

"fabrication" again seems to be a word introduced by Korgex

I never said the concept was introduced by Korgnex. I clearly stated it was a word introduced and defined by him recently. Why did you think I put it in " " ? Didn't I multiple times said that I personally call it a "posthumous reality"? Didn't other people called it other things.

Word and concept are two different things. so chill.

So, what if both Arky and I think Malachi doesn't matter. So what?

nothing, I simply don't agree

It's not too late to discuss anything. What does that mean anyway? I'm not aware that there is a statue of limitation on discussion on a online forum.

I never said it's too late to discuss fabrication topic either. How can I say that when I had posts about that issue and writing about Tupac and Biggie? I said

And giving an inch to the believers with "fabrication" isn't working, it's too late for that

(which was a reference to Arklove's posts of "finding a common ground" and "we gave an inch to believers with fabrication")

I'm simply saying it's too late to try to find a middle ground between doubters and believers and say "let forget Malachi". It's not about discussing the concept. how hard is it to understand that?


I don't know what you want me to understand. Frankly, I lost count on the times you said you are done with this topic. May I suggest you to not say "the end" too soon?

so? yeah sometimes I get bored by this topic as it goes in circles, sometimes I see something interesting that I want to briefly comment on. Then generally I end up regretting it and hating the opposite sides mood of this thread and the accompanying misunderstandings and unwillingness to listen to the other side (such as this is the 2nd time I'm explaining what I said and you still continue to accuse me of things I never said) and unfriendly tone. So I prefer to take another break. In case you didn't realize I'm free to post whenever I want and not post whenever I like as well.

Whatever. I'm tired of repeating that song fabrication is not a new focus. It's been mention almost 2000 pages before.

I know that. The reason I called it a new focus was because of Arklove's post in which she said "We need to find a common ground among all fans...and I think that's a good start to all agree on...". To me it seems like the idea was to get everyone to agree on falsification and that would be the "new focus" rather than "keep saying 'Jason Malachi, Jason Malachi'."

See rather than writing ordering sentences starting with "stop" and so on, you can actually try to re-read and understand what the other person writes, then you'll realize that you don't need to be angered and frustrated.
 
I'm here because like me, most posters in here don't believe it's Michael Jackson singing these songs.

I'm sorry, it's late and I don't understand everything and every word, but I don't think anything has changed?


ETA:

[youtube]q6yp5KN8HW0[/youtube]

(just because it's such a simple, great song..)
 
Ivy, you can have the final word if you want. I have no desire to circle around this. Just want to let you know I was never angry. Frustrated, yes. But, not at you, but at the situation. Good luck (not saying in a sacarstic way). Enjoy your evening.
 
Ivy, you can have the final word if you want. I have no desire to circle around this. Just want to let you know I was never angry. Frustrated, yes. But, not at you, but at the situation. Good luck (not saying in a sacarstic way). Enjoy your evening.

It's not about having the final word at all. I simply don't want to have any misunderstandings. I know what I said and I know what I didn't say. I don't like it when for whatever reason what I said is misconstrued. It's a pet peeve of mine. and you see me trying to explain when that happens.
 
Love it or hate it,Michael’s vison or not, fabrication or not,they are never crime due to different people’s different tastes.It’s fine. Everybody is free to have an opinion about it.Nobody can be blamed for their different opinions.Nobody should be judged by their different opinions.
You like it,ok,keep on enjoying it.You hate it,fine,but don’t ruin others’ experiences.
For most debaters in this thread,I think their main issue is whether it’s Michael singing on Cascio tracks or not.This is the key to the problem.
 
"Much Too Soon" - At a very early age my Uncle taught me to appreciate and study all types of music I remember going to the music stores with him and he would pull cd's for me "Do you know this? (Carole King... Tapestry) have you heard of them? (Bread) oh I love this...(Jim Croce's.. I have to say I love you in a song)" we would walk down the aisles of every section... it was like homework for me. He gave me a little at a time and when I was ready for more he would give me a whole new list. "There's so many styles... study it all, don't limit yourself." - I would leave the store with a wide variety with anything from Tchikovsky's Nutcracker to Queen. When we got home or in the car we would listen to it. Some songs would weaken him and touch his heart while others would make him sing and dance!! He was always teaching me and I am so thankful for all of his lessons in both music and life. - this is what came to my mind when I first heard "Much Too Soon." I love this style of music and I can appreciate it because of you. I love you MJ
-Taryll Jackson-


I instantly believe Taryll. I love what Taryll shared with us here and I especially love it that I totally feel like Michael when it comes down to music. The 'don't limit yourself.'...aaaww...so much joy you can have from music, all kinds of. These songs he mentioned are songs that have that special something.


Tell me how someone who likes top class songs like:
[youtube]Q-22LPgdXhw[/youtube]

or

[youtube]XpqqjU7u5Yc[/youtube]

or

[youtube]qjppwVyoQww[/youtube]

or

[youtube]E6Vn17S37_Y[/youtube]

Listen to the harmonies, melodies, the layers (not all songs have more layers, but the chorus in 'more than a woman' sigh...beautiful). There was a reason Michael told Brett Ratner in his interview that after the BeeGees album Saterday Night Fever came out, he decided to do it on his own and write his own songs. He studied them, like he studied a lot of other artists. But he wanted to do it even better.

And I want to go even further: I don't think when Brett Ratner started talking about BeeGees songs in the well known interview and Michael said he loved them, the song he meant wasn't 'How do you mend a broken heart'. (even though he sang it). Brett started to sing it and Michael completed it, because he knew the lyrics (of course). From the moment I saw that interview I felt Michael meant 'How deep is your love'. Recently I read an interview with one of his nephews (TJ or Taryll?) and he mentioned 'How deep is your love' as one of Michael's favourites. But that didn't surprise me, because I always felt he meant that song and not the BeeGees song Brett Ratner started.

And now this:

[youtube]U33Q0reRQMM[/youtube]

(The choir has to 'make' the song, if you know what I mean). Like, you know what? Let's throw in a gospel choir to make it a 'real' gospel. Yikes, yikes, yikes.



If you like the Cascio songs (released or unreleased), I'm really done with talking to you (on this subject), because the Cascio songs and Michael Jackson songs are worlds apart from eachother. It's nothing personal, but it's just that if you don't understand what it needs to make a great song, then you will never know what I mean.

I don't have anything against people who love the Cascio songs. If you like them, that's all right, but just don't tell me they are Michael's songs.

And no, even if Michael himself (co)wrote them, I still wouldn't like them.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Stella. (yeah shocker I know ahahaha :) ) There's a huge difference of "falsification" Korgex defined versus the imposter vocal theory.

The "falsification" is a posthumous release concept and more of a ethics issue such as
- is it okay to have Eminem produce a Tupac album ? (Eminem wasn't even industry when Tupac died)
- is it okay to use already released song bits of Biggie to create new songs?
- is it okay to strengthen Michael's vocals with additional vocals for a composite lead?

Furthermore if the "falsification" theory assumes every vocal is at least credited with a background vocal credit, that could even be legal.

As Stella pointed out imposter vocals area whole totally different thing which is clearly illegal.




I know you heard me say "it's the reality of posthumous releases" a million times but I'm gonna repeat it again :) I like to give Tupac - Eminem example. It was 5th or 6th posthumous release, by that time sales were declining of Tupac. Tupac's mother who also runs his Estate approved Eminem to be the producer, actually they wanted a new approach and a popular and hip person to do it.

However Eminem was a cook when Tupac died, wasn't in the music industry, never met or worked with Tupac. Furthermore he totally had his spin / style on the songs, even did new beats and modified Tupac's vocals to fit the new music. Needless to say some Tupac fans were angered by it. They didn't want Eminem around the songs, they criticized the how the songs were drastically changed and not Tupac's vision and so on. Also generally speaking in both Tupac and Biggie's cases they kept adding verses from other current artists to complete the songs.

That's what I call a "posthumous release reality". Some fans would criticize it as it happened in the cases of Tupac and Biggie. and it's really a choice. but not really comparable to an imposter .

I know this is off topic but i couldn't help but laugh when i saw that line 'strengthen Michael's vocals'. HAHA....i know you're just using an example and i'm not aiming this at anybody in particular, but have you ever heard MJ sing, as compared to other singers? HAHA...I'm telling you..NOBODY has as strong a voice as Michael had. I dare say that of opera singers, as well. That's why Michael was not afraid to sing with them. i wish somebody could give me an example of another pop, rock or otherwise singer who dared stand their voice up next to an opera singer. Every time i listen to MJ's voice, i marvel that much more at the sheer strength. I just saw a vid with his brothers doing that reunion tour..i won't comment on that. Safe to say, If it weren't for MJ there'd be no Jacksons, musically. But anyway..as far as opera singers are ooncerned..which are generally regarded as having the strongest voices in the world...i'm telling you..comparing MJ's voice to them, I think opera needs a tune up. That's all i'm going to say. So...when i first heard his voice...i can remember how people wanted to believe he took a hormone to keep the boyishness sound...but i don't think they realized what they were talking about..That voice...i don't think people are yet to realize the weapon that it was. Unprecedented STRENGTH. God gave him dynamite. There was just nothing like it, never ever will be, again. So, for those people to think they can somehow improve upon things by compositing his voice with some fakes or other people...talking about muting something and screwing it up and taking away strength...MAN. And DESTROYING IT.
 
I know this is off topic but i couldn't help but laugh when i saw that line 'strengthen Michael's vocals'. HAHA....i know you're just using an example and i'm not aiming this at anybody in particular, but have you ever heard MJ sing, as compared to other singers? HAHA...I'm telling you..NOBODY has as strong a voice as Michael had. I dare say that of opera singers, as well. That's why Michael was not afraid to sing with them. i wish somebody could give me an example of another pop, rock or otherwise singer who dared stand their voice up next to an opera singer. Every time i listen to MJ's voice, i marvel that much more at the sheer strength. I just saw a vid with his brothers doing that reunion tour..i won't comment on that. Safe to say, If it weren't for MJ there'd be no Jacksons, musically. But anyway..as far as opera singers are ooncerned..which are generally regarded as having the strongest voices in the world...i'm telling you..comparing MJ's voice to them, I think opera needs a tune up. That's all i'm going to say. So...when i first heard his voice...i can remember how people wanted to believe he took a hormone to keep the boyishness sound...but i don't think they realized what they were talking about..That voice...i don't think people are yet to realize the weapon that it was. Unprecedented STRENGTH. God gave him dynamite. There was just nothing like it, never ever will be, again. So, for those people to think they can somehow improve upon things by compositing his voice with some fakes or other people...talking about muting something and screwing it up and taking away strength...MAN. And DESTROYING IT.

well I clearly didn't use strengthen the way you mean. For example everyone knows that one of John Lennon songs was recorded to a tape recorder at his home , when they planned to release it some parts weren't as good as needed so Paul McCartney recorded them and their voices was layered. and that's in what meaning and setting I had used that word.
 
I know this is off topic but i couldn't help but laugh when i saw that line 'strengthen Michael's vocals'. HAHA....i know you're just using an example and i'm not aiming this at anybody in particular, but have you ever heard MJ sing, as compared to other singers? HAHA...I'm telling you..NOBODY has as strong a voice as Michael had. I dare say that of opera singers, as well. That's why Michael was not afraid to sing with them. i wish somebody could give me an example of another pop, rock or otherwise singer who dared stand their voice up next to an opera singer. Every time i listen to MJ's voice, i marvel that much more at the sheer strength. I just saw a vid with his brothers doing that reunion tour..i won't comment on that. Safe to say, If it weren't for MJ there'd be no Jacksons, musically. But anyway..as far as opera singers are ooncerned..which are generally regarded as having the strongest voices in the world...i'm telling you..comparing MJ's voice to them, I think opera needs a tune up. That's all i'm going to say. So...when i first heard his voice...i can remember how people wanted to believe he took a hormone to keep the boyishness sound...but i don't think they realized what they were talking about..That voice...i don't think people are yet to realize the weapon that it was. Unprecedented STRENGTH. God gave him dynamite. There was just nothing like it, never ever will be, again. So, for those people to think they can somehow improve upon things by compositing his voice with some fakes or other people...talking about muting something and screwing it up and taking away strength...MAN. And DESTROYING IT.

Thing is, the lead vocals aren't strengthened with another voice. Take All I Need for example, it hardly features any Porte at all. He is in these songs of course, his voice is unmistakable but it is mostly in the choruses. In Breaking News he sings in the chorus and accents the word Jackson on the verses. The actual verses and bridge are one voice. The lead singer on these tracks is singing full out to the maximum of his capability. Listen to the adlibs on Monster. Listen to the Morphine style bridge on Black Widow. Listen to the end of Water. That is someone who sounds a little like Mj, trying his hardest to sound exactly like him. He is straining and uncontrolled. He can't maintain a smooth vibrato like Mj. He is concentrating so hard on sounding like Mj that he let the little things slip through. The change in pronunciation for example.

Even when Michael was half singing a song and mumbling through the lyrics like In The Back, or just singing out and about, he never had any problem sounding like the Michael we all know. He never sounded how he does on these 12 songs. 12 songs that appeared from nowhere almost a year after Mj died and have no traceable history or evidence of Michael's involvement beyond the word of the one person who was there, Eddie Cascio, and who sold the songs for a hefty amount.

What we should have done from the beginning is demanded a full investigation and complete transparency. Those who believe it is Michael should have no reason to be concerned because they should be confident that it would be proven it is indeed him. The opinion of those who worked with Michael is just as divided as that of the fans and is ultimately only an opinion. They weren't there. These so called tests are all well and good but without seeing the results or even knowing what they tested, how it was tested and what it was tested against then they hold no weight.
 
Milli Vanilli is actually quite different and then also similar. At that time album credits weren't this much established, it was common practice in Europe to have beautiful people to be the frontman. Rob and Fab was actually credited as "dancer" on the Europe releases.

The only problem happened when their album got released in USA with a vocal credits. And they didn't get away with it. A housewife sued them and Arista settled the lawsuit by offering money back to everyone who bought Milli Vannili albums and / or attended their concerts.

I only brought up Millli Vanilli as an example for those who like to say a record company would never do something like or similar to what some believe happen with the Cascio tracks because it's to risky. But, the past show that yea they could if they wanted too and one actually did.
 
Last edited:
well I clearly didn't use strengthen the way you mean. For example everyone knows that one of John Lennon songs was recorded to a tape recorder at his home , when they planned to release it some parts weren't as good as needed so Paul McCartney recorded them and their voices was layered. and that's in what meaning and setting I had used that word.

But actually, what you described is what i meant. Who could possibly stand in for Michael, the way Paul had to stand in for John? To me, when I heard John's voice, I knew it wasn't ever as strong as Paul's, even when the Beatles were together.
 
Thing is, the lead vocals aren't strengthened with another voice. Take All I Need for example, it hardly features any Porte at all. He is in these songs of course, his voice is unmistakable but it is mostly in the choruses. In Breaking News he sings in the chorus and accents the word Jackson on the verses. The actual verses and bridge are one voice. The lead singer on these tracks is singing full out to the maximum of his capability. Listen to the adlibs on Monster. Listen to the Morphine style bridge on Black Widow. Listen to the end of Water. That is someone who sounds a little like Mj, trying his hardest to sound exactly like him. He is straining and uncontrolled. He can't maintain a smooth vibrato like Mj. He is concentrating so hard on sounding like Mj that he let the little things slip through. The change in pronunciation for example.

Even when Michael was half singing a song and mumbling through the lyrics like In The Back, or just singing out and about, he never had any problem sounding like the Michael we all know. He never sounded how he does on these 12 songs. 12 songs that appeared from nowhere almost a year after Mj died and have no traceable history or evidence of Michael's involvement beyond the word of the one person who was there, Eddie Cascio, and who sold the songs for a hefty amount.

What we should have done from the beginning is demanded a full investigation and complete transparency. Those who believe it is Michael should have no reason to be concerned because they should be confident that it would be proven it is indeed him. The opinion of those who worked with Michael is just as divided as that of the fans and is ultimately only an opinion. They weren't there. These so called tests are all well and good but without seeing the results or even knowing what they tested, how it was tested and what it was tested against then they hold no weight.

you're right. who has the guts to release demos where the singer doesn't mean to do something..or he mumbles...doesn't know what words to sing, and still sounds magnificent? That was Michael. It was like when he cried after Motown25 because he thought it wasn't good enough, and some boy came up to him and gushed about his dancing. Even if Michael tried, he couldn't screw up. His voice was just too strong for that. I remember the This Is It rehearsals, where he was weak, and whispering, and still, the entire choir behind him couldn't be heard, because of the power of his voice. They seemed so weak in comparison. I just about fainted when i witnessed that. A whisper from a sick weak man is greater than a whole bunch of someone elses' full professional healthy singing voices. I mean that's just crazy. I never heard of that, before.
 
Last edited:
I only brought up Millli Vanilli as an example for those who like to say a record company would never do something like or similar to what some believe happen with the Cascio tracks because it's to risky. But, the past show that yea they could if they wanted too and one actually did.

there's a little problem with that example

- the European company that released Milli Vanilli albums dancers or with performance or no credit and they didn't know it , it was all planned by the producer

(reference : credits of first album All or Nothing in Europe
alllpinsert2.gif


Reference : quotes from the producer

Boney M record albums pictured five black performers, mostly former U.S. service members who stayed on in Germany to make a living in music. But Boney M was also Frank Farian, finally getting to record the black music that got him into the business. On the albums, he was mentioned only as a back-up singer, and sometimes he wasn't mentioned as a singer at all. It was like practice for the Vanilli gambit.

Farian wanted a catchy look to go with the bouncy sounds. With the Milli Vanilli songs already recorded, Rob and Fab walked into the studios one day, seeking work. They looked great. They sang terribly. They were perfect.

"I just said, OK, let's do it," Farian remembers. "What's the difference? It's some extra money for me. Even here in-house, the musicians didn't know. I knew it could get them all in trouble."

Farian set up Rob and Fab with long-braided wigs, costumes, dance bits.

Howell says Farian had him come into the studios after midnight to record, often working until 4 a.m. No one could see him. No one could know.

Another ex-soldier, Charles Shaw, was hired to do the rap on "Girl You Know It's True." The song would go platinum seven times in the States.

"It was a crazy idea," Farian says. "I thought, OK, it's just for discotheques and clubs. I never thought it would be a great hit, not No. 1, not Top 10 in America. And then it was too late and I was too embarrassed to say anything."

Now the Grammy is gone and Milli Vanilli's future is uncertain. "If I had it to do over," Farian says, "perhaps it would have been smarter to have them all together onstage, have the original people singing and Rob and Fab just dancing."

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-12-31/entertainment/ca-5618_1_milli-vanilli/2)

- Arista only got the rights to release the album after their success in Europe, got the recorded songs sent to them. Arista all through it claimed they never knew it, they never saw the recordings. Arista's position is that they were completely unaware.

(reference: Roy Lott, an executive vice president at Arista, told the Times: "There is no way that anyone ever could have known whether they sang or not. We are merely a distributor of their records in the United States. No one from Arista was ever in the studio when they recorded it. Rob and Fab and Frank (Farian) assured us that they sang on the record."

Farian supports Lott's position.

"The record company never knew that. I never told them anything," the German producer said at the press conference. "Later on, after the record was out, there were some people who raised some questions."

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-16/entertainment/ca-4894_1_milli-vanilli)

so it's not an example of a company that's doing such thing knowingly and willingly. According to Arista they were duped. According to Frank Farian - the producer behind it all - he hid it from everyone including the original European company as well. Milli Vanilli can only be a good example of record companies being duped.

(reference: US credits insert which clearly credits the records to Rob & Fab

girllpinsert1.gif
 
Ivy, thanks for the official documents, but I don't think that anyone contested nor talked about the administrative papers.

Now read again what has been said in this thread for a zillionth time regarding Milli Vanilli. The argument stands:

Some people used the argument that no company would ever take any risks to use fake singers and claim that vocals belong to them when in reality the vocals belong to others. In other words, what's on the paper nobody really cares because what's on the paper is NOT the issue. The issue is presenting to people two guys and falsly claiming that the vocals we hear belong to them. Now I don't know why you are even twisting somehting that is crystal clear. The vocals do not belong to those two guys, which means that the company DID dare to falsly claim what should have never been claimed in the first place.


Now, don't you see what others are trying to say? If company can cover their asses with a bunch of papers and falsly claim something, then they do it. The administrative papers and the contracts may be ambiguous, but the two guys presented as singers (who actually aren't) are unambiguously presented as if the vocals belonged to them and to no one else. I don't know why is it so complicated to understand. By extention, people say that if it was done once, it could be done twice, three times and many other times as long as the companies are administratively covered and ultimately as long as they can generate huge profits.

I don't know why you need to go to great extents such as posting contracts and administration to simply "correct people" when actually nobody is denying those papers. Why turning the blind eye on what the people are really trying to say here?

The case is simple, we have videos showing us two guys to whom the vocals don't belong, yet unambiguosly presented as if the vocals do belong to them on the cover of their album, in their music videos and even during live performances. So companies do dare such things. Period.



[youtube]sZG-VvlErJY[/youtube]

[youtube]sjcsgROJ83c[/youtube]

[youtube]QrTpPbD6VoQ[/youtube]

[youtube]ReklDIQS-n8[/youtube]

[youtube]NwrL9MV6jSk[/youtube]

[youtube]ds_APrR4pz0[/youtube]
images

milli-vanilli-eilcom.jpg
images
images
 
Back
Top