AlwaysThere;4025907 said:
Proving that Michael didn't cowrite anything with Eddie or James would probably be impossible, considering that the writing supposedly happened between the two of them, with no one present to defend either argument. Plus, while I don't believe for a second that Michael wrote any of the lyrics, it is very true that even the greatest artists will write several duds. Not everything written by Paul McCartney or Tupac or Madonna was incredible, after all.
It is not impossible and is actually very simple to prove because one only has to compare four decades of work which included co-written songs to these three (twelve) songs and look for matches in themes, text, language, etc. Co-writers working with Michael in the past can speak to his work ethic in co-writing situations and compared that to Cascio's tales. While I also agree not every song written by Michael (or anyone) is particularly earth shattering, as previously mentioned, Michael’s songs had very predictable themes that remained constant for the better part of four decades and that cannot be ignored.
But it is very easy to fake a songwriter's credit. Michael, for example, was credited for cowriting A Place With No Name and Blue Gangsta, even though each song was written solely by Dr. Freeze.
I agree with OnirMJ that if Michael took co-writing credits it is because he did indeed update lyrics. Again, the lyrics had to mean something to Michael for him to sing it. Reviewing the lyrics of co-written songs by Michael and others, one can take an educated guess and mostly be correct with which lyrics Michael updated to make it more meaningful for him because his themes were very consistent over time. I would safely bet Michael authored the “let’s both go outside and play” line in Break Of Dawn for example.
ivy;4025913 said:
Whether Michael contributed to the writing of the songs or not does not prove anything in regards to whether he sang them or not.
It is an attempted civil trial and the plaintiff’s legal team only has to show what is more than likely to be true.
Michael would not sing something that did not mean something to him as I stated above. To suggest Michael would not do an extensive rewrite of the mediocre rubbish found in the twelve Cascio tracks is to ignore Michael body of art over the decades which included very consistent themes. Michael would also most likely have an issue with the melody and choices made regarding melody construction on those songs. Michael’s work ethic was also discussed here at length as well. Those three things have to happen before Michael sang a note, i.e., he had to be committed to a song before even singing a note on a demo. Therefore, all of these things had to be in alignment for Michael to be in anyone’s basement and record one song let alone twelve. Those that worked with Michael in the past can speak to that.
That being said, I do not believe Michael ever saw one lyric because I do not believe he sung the songs. If he did see the lyrics, he would most likely rewrite close to every word and that evidently did not happen here. I do believe he received writing credit exactly in the manner Birchey described in his post.
I believe these three factors should play a part in the plaintiff’s lawyers’ case if this goes to trial. Otherwise, it would seem those lawyers would prefer to sabotage their case by focusing only on vocal analysis - the more complex the better - and ridiculous theories because the lawsuit was most likely a rouse anyway to silence fans on this controversial subject once and for all.