Latest on MJJC

Estate, Cascio and Porte Sued Over Three Songs on the "Michael" Album - Vera Senova Class Action

Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Now heres the real question.

Seeing as Burn Tonight was partially written and full recorded by MJ and that he was so happy with it, it must be our jobs to push the Estate and Sony into legal action over Enrique's clear rip off, as MJ fans we can't have this, we need to contact Cascio and Porte and notify them immediately that someone is taking advantage of Michael Jackson.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Yelling-goat.jpg
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

There's also a clear rip off of "Water":

[youtube]Q5l2ChAqRDg[/youtube]
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Dorian said:
Does anybody hear what I hear? :p
Click to expand...


Lol, that's funny. It is the same beat too, well at least I'd say many parts are almost identical. Almost the same melody as well during specific moments of the song.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Tygger said:
Fortunately, Xscape has proven otherwise.





I asked a question similar to Dam2040's previously. While I believe Whoisit89's response may be close to the reality of the situation, it is still illogical. If the songs are questionable, the most sensible action is to release none instead of inviting controversy with these three. Why these particular three out of the twelve I do not know. Releasing those three only benefited Cascio and team and there was no reason for them to benefit from the lost of Michael.
Click to expand...

Xscape didn't prove anything. Xscape is comprised of material released from all eras comprised of songs fans heard before. Nothing about that album is new and recent, and done within the last few years of his life. So yeah there's still no definite indication that those kinds of songs wouldn't be a huge success or not. But given the landscape, I think those specific kinds of songs would do great for the Estate. I believe they believe that as well.

And nothing about what I said is illogical, the songs are questionable, but like I said, the music Michael last did within the last few years of his passing would do numbers for the Estate. Them most likely being aware of that, and having 12 supposed brand new Michael Jackson material on the table, questionable vocals or not, them being unable to definitively prove that the voice isn't Michael, despite all the eyebrows the songs raised, they're going to take some chances. And that's what they did, because the songs raised eyebrows, instead of releasing all 12, they took the chance with three, possibly monitoring what the reactions would be and hoping fans and the listeners wouldn't recognize all the flaws in the voice. They probably chose those three songs because after the work Teddy & Neff-U (KYHU) did, those three were probably the most "Michael" of them all. Which if listening, aside from Black Widow, I personally think is the case. But with Black Widow, I think the voice is more obviously not Michael in that track than it is on the three songs they released. And again, they only opted to release three songs instead of all twelve at once, because they surrounded those three songs with authentic Michael Jackson songs, so if suspicions are raised, the album won't be THAT much of a flop. A brand new album consisting of 12 entirely fraudulent MJ songs will be a major disaster, while a brand new album consisting of 3 fake songs and 7 legit Michael Jackson tunes, while still a disaster, it wouldn't be of the same magnitude. That reasoning sounds pretty logical to me.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

WhoIsIt89, Xscape's songs are not from all eras and as you said, it is not from the later years of his life. Obviously L.A. Reid does not believe anything from the later years would be "real money makers for the Estate."

As for the remainder of your post, I am referring to the decision that was made and not specifically you as you did not make the decision to put the Cascio tracks on the Michael cd. If Branca did indeed hear Soldier Boy, thought it was not Michael, and still went about getting those songs on the Michael cd, it is illogical. He had reason to be suspicious of anything from the Cascio team and continuing to forge a professional relationship with them simply because of the later date of the songs is irrational and reckless.

WhoIsIt89 said:
A brand new album consisting of 12 entirely fraudulent MJ songs will be a major disaster, while a brand new album consisting of 3 fake songs and 7 legit Michael Jackson tunes, while still a disaster, it wouldn't be of the same magnitude.
Click to expand...

Regardless of 3 or 12 songs, if it was reasoned as you are suggesting, this is fraud.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

In regards to Xscape, the fact remains that it isn't an album which focuses on a specific time period of Michael's career, so it certainly wouldn't represent the final years of Michael's life. We have Loving You & LNFSG from the 80's, as well as DYKWCA & STTR, and the rest can either be argued as late HIStory & Invincible Era. I realize LA Reid doesn't believe anything from the recent years is the real money makers. So what's that supposed to mean? I don't think LA Reid speaks for everyone or even those in charge of Michael's estate. Neither do I but I just think with the proposal of 12 brand new Michael Jackson songs from the later period of his life, the Estate & Sony's willingness to jump on them, sort of proves how they feel about material from that portion of Michael's life, like 06-07'.


And either way you slice it, it's fraud. But personally, I don't think the Estate knew for sure whether it was Michael or if it wasn't. Rooney certainly implies that, with him saying that everyone wasn't as unanimous with the conclusion that it was Michael as the statement says. Whatever they used that led the Estate/Sony to their decision, I think even with whatever their results were, that they simply didn't really knew without a shadow of a doubt. With that, it isn't that hard to see why the songs still made it on the album despite McClain being against them, the Estate is two people, not just McClain, so while having disagreements it is possible that they reach some sort of median. And I think that's what happened. And with the idea of them never really knowing for sure either way if it was Michael or not, it also isn't that hard to see why they'd opt to put out 3 songs instead of the entire 12 at one time.

They were wetting their beak, seeing if anyone would notice, see if the songs raised as many eyebrows in the public, while on the market, as it did in those "meetings"; And seeing if something would come out of it. If none of these things happened, then they'd keep putting them out in future releases, while either never really knowing for sure, or just accepting it was Michael since nobody would ever had brought up concerns. If things happened as they actually did, then they'd only be responsible for three songs, as opposed to a whole album consisting of 12 fraudulent tracks. Again, I think that's pretty logical reasoning for why they opted to just put out three instead of twelve. And while being fraud, I don't think the repercussions for the two would be as high, if they honestly weren't ever sure either way, because realistically they can claim that they just didn't know.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

WhoIsIt89 said:
Neither do I but I just think with the proposal of 12 brand new Michael Jackson songs from the later period of his life, the Estate & Sony's willingness to jump on them, sort of proves how they feel about material from that portion of Michael's life, like 06-07'.
Click to expand...

At the very least, it shows how supportive Estate/Sony was of the Cascio team.

They were wetting their beak, seeing if anyone would notice, see if the songs raised as many eyebrows in the public, while on the market, as it did in those "meetings"; And seeing if something would come out of it. If none of these things happened, then they'd keep putting them out in future releases, while either never really knowing for sure, or just accepting it was Michael since nobody would ever had brought up concerns. If things happened as they actually did, then they'd only be responsible for three songs, as opposed to a whole album consisting of 12 fraudulent tracks. Again, I think that's pretty logical reasoning for why they opted to just put out three instead of twelve. And while being fraud, I don't think the repercussions for the two would be as high, if they honestly weren't ever sure either way, because realistically they can claim that they just didn't know.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your attempting to reason such a decision however; it is very difficult to explain a negative deed unless one is capable of such deed. From your posts, it does not seem as if you attempt fraud regularly. It is also why I see the decision as illogical and the deed as irrational and reckless. If I am suspicious of one track, I am suspicious of the team and I do not want to entertain any track from that team as they are attempting to defraud me.

As per Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

As per Pminton, earlier in the thread: "if this was a fraud it will come out."
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Ok so I really did not give much attention to this thread and as I'm reading the past couple pages I see mentioning of songs .. Water etc.. Has there been newer leaks post xscape? Cuz the songs mentioned I for recall ever hearing
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

All Cascio songs leaked a while ago. Just recently, all the demos of the songs that had demos of them leaked
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

OnirMJ said:
What Michael has done to question his credibility? His writing skills? His integrity? If he wanted to fake credits he could have faked it on Butterflies & Cry also. But he didn't. Because he had nothing to do with writing of those songs. And his Estate could have faked Another Day, Hold My Hand, Slave To The Rhythm & Chicago!

That doesn't make any sense. Why should we believe Damien Shields or Freeze over Michael Jackson himself (Break Of Dawn)?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean Michael's credibility; I meant Freeze's.

Let's point out that Freeze (who is a majorly credible source) spoke to Damien Shields numerous times, particularly for an in depth article on the creation of A Place With No Name. Freeze told Damien that Michael had nothing to do with the composition of A Place With No Name or Blue Gangsta, a fact Shields reiterated in his review of Xscape. Since there is no reason to doubt Freeze, I have to go with him. Michael doesn't deserve a credit on APWNN or BG because he didn't write them.

Just because Michael has a co-writers credit on ONE Dr. Freeze collab doesn't mean he wrote on all of them. Michael six songs with Teddy Riley for Dangerous, but he didn't write all of them (Why You Wanna Trip on Me). Also, three facts for you:

- The credits on XSCAPE aren't always accurate. On the original registration for the title track around 2002, the composition for "Xscape" was credited to Rodney Jerkins, Fred Jerkins III, LaShawn Daniels and Harvey Jay Mason. In the album booklet, Mason is NOT credited as a cowriter, yet Michael is.
- The estate aren't geniuses when it comes to giving credit where credit is due. Let's not forget that they failed to credit Paul Anka for cowriting This Is It (which they could have found out with two minutes worth of Google searching).
- Michael didn't credit Brad Buxer for the composition of Stranger in Moscow. Brad didn't ask to be credited, though Michael should have done so anyways. Why? Integrity. Morals.
- Michael is dead and didn't put together the credits himself.

So yeah. Michael didn't write APWNN or BG. And I won't give him credit for it.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

After listening to Xscape over and over again for weeks, I was curious to hear the album 'Michael' again. I had not heard any of the songs in more than a year aside from Hold My Hand. OMG!!! I was literary shocked when I heard these 3 songs again after quite some time. Despite what some people may want to believe, these songs are DEFINITELY not sung by Michael Jackson aside from the ad-libs. Although I am not in favour of a big public trial which could damage any future genuine projects, I hope these songs are deleted from Michael's song catalog. I also think that all of the parties involved, including Teddy Riley, should be thrown in jail for a few months to think about what the've done.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

after the cascio early tracks leaked, i decided listening to them. also with jasons stuff afterwards.. (gosh his music sux.).
its so so obvious that jason is on the cascio tracks. i cant picture anyone else singing the cascio tracks.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

DanGerouS- said:
after the cascio early tracks leaked, i decided listening to them. also with jasons stuff afterwards.. (gosh his music sux.).
its so so obvious that jason is on the cascio tracks. i cant picture anyone else singing the cascio tracks.
Click to expand...


By the way....

https://app.box.com/s/1bjrplj2u5orr4eut4qo
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I'm just here scratching my head as to how to find some of these songs that leaked 'cause I can't find them on youtube. I thought I had all of them but I've been hiding away the past few months, gah!
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

reibish said:
I'm just here scratching my head as to how to find some of these songs that leaked 'cause I can't find them on youtube. I thought I had all of them but I've been hiding away the past few months, gah!
Click to expand...

what songs u need?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Anybody else noticed that the Ca$hcios stole the Piano from You Rock My World, and then they added it in Breaking News?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

no that must have been a heavy chore to steal that piano just to record BN :giggle: but really no I didn't hear that and if so. it could have added by the producer of that song Teddy Riley . What part/ time on the song is the RMW Piano instrumentation heard Most prevalent in your opinion.? I would like to hear and judge for myself. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

AlwaysThere said:
I didn't mean Michael's credibility; I meant Freeze's.

Let's point out that Freeze (who is a majorly credible source) spoke to Damien Shields numerous times, particularly for an in depth article on the creation of A Place With No Name. Freeze told Damien that Michael had nothing to do with the composition of A Place With No Name or Blue Gangsta, a fact Shields reiterated in his review of Xscape. Since there is no reason to doubt Freeze, I have to go with him. Michael doesn't deserve a credit on APWNN or BG because he didn't write them.

So yeah. Michael didn't write APWNN or BG. And I won't give him credit for it.
Click to expand...

Freeze just wanted to make himself more important than he really is. He wrote the demos. I understand why he said what he said but that is not the truth. Since there is no reason to doubt Michael Jackson or Estate (this time) - again they could have faked credits on Chicago, Slave To The Rhythm... Michael deserves credit on APWNN or BG because he did co-write them. Just like Heaven Can Wait, Whatever Happens, Break Of Dawn...
 
AlwaysThere;4028308 said:
I didn't mean Michael's credibility; I meant Freeze's.

Let's point out that Freeze (who is a majorly credible source) spoke to Damien Shields numerous times, particularly for an in depth article on the creation of A Place With No Name. Freeze told Damien that Michael had nothing to do with the composition of A Place With No Name or Blue Gangsta, a fact Shields reiterated in his review of Xscape. Since there is no reason to doubt Freeze, I have to go with him. Michael doesn't deserve a credit on APWNN or BG because he didn't write them.
Click to expand...


Thing is when we talk about song credits that's about money too. Because if someone else is co-credited for your song then that means you have to share the income of the song with that person. It's not just about honor, but money too. Maybe Michael really did not write a note or a line in any of those songs, but on the other hand you put too much trust in an alleged interview with only one of the parties. People can talk whatever they want to talk in an interview but when it comes to whom to credit that is hard core business. Corey Rooney clearly communicated to the Estate that he was the sole writer of Chicago and as such he is credited alone. I'm sure Dr. Freeze could have done the same. Why he didn't do that is anyone's guess. It could be that he did not care, but another option is that what he allegedly told Damien is maybe not necessarily the gospel (nor is Damien's blog the gospel, BTW).

Here is BTW what Freeze told about APWNN:

“I did all the music, and he only had to learn the lyrics,” continued Freeze. “‘A Place With No Name’ is itself a kind of escape, a song where you just close your eyes to find yourself instantly transported into a wonderful world. In fact, this song was inspired by ‘A Horse With No Name’ from the group America. The lyrics of this song are very deep. I wanted to refresh it, make a version for the 2000s as well… The group America loved the idea. They found this ‘update’ absolutely terrific. They were really excited about this project.”
Click to expand...

http://www.damienshields.com/michael-jacksons-a-place-with-no-name-the-story-behind-the-song/

Now, we know that's not really the truth. Dr. Freeze did not do "all the music". It's basically a cover of America's AHWNN so how can he claim "I did all the music" in the first place? Dewey Bunell did the music. It was not just "inspired by" that song as he claims, but it's basically a cover that got new lyrics.

And BTW Freeze also said this in the same interview:

In the end it wasn’t until January 2004 that “A Place With No Name” was revisited. Jackson had asked to hear it again and some minor edits were made at Neverland.
“It has improved gradually,” said Freeze. “It was incremental work. He listened to the different mixes and changed some details around here or there. He was in full creative control. We wanted the song to be perfect… It was a bit like a director looking to improve his film by changing the script or changing players. This is the type of process that was used to create this song, and overall, the album ‘Invincible’… All that interested him was to have #1 hits.”
Click to expand...

Also:

Q: Did you obtain the rights to the band quickly? Did you ask permission?

F: Oh absolutely, the group America loved the idea. They found this "update" absolutely terrific. They were really excited about this project. Compared to the extract leak on the internet, many wonderful items were added to the song by Michael. It's more dense, much denser. Believe me, when you hear it, you'll be taping your foot!
Click to expand...

http://michaeljacksonbeat.blogspot.hu/2011/02/dr-freeze-on-michael-jackson.html
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

respect77 said:
(nor is Damien's blog the gospel, BTW).
Click to expand...

Yes sometimes I think fans treated Shields blog as a scientific researched report. Sure sometimes there are some intresting infos or statements from people who worked with Michael, but the most time he did only make summaries of infos we all have and adds his subjective assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

so it could be possible that there is a post 2001 APWNN? so far we got the 1998/99 demo and the 2014 mix on xscape.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

respect77 said:
Thing is when we talk about song credits that's about money too. Because if someone else is co-credited for your song then that means you have to share the income of the song with that person. It's not just about honor, but money too. Maybe Michael really did not write a note or a line in any of those songs, but on the other hand you put too much trust in an alleged interview with only one of the parties. People can talk whatever they want to talk in an interview but when it comes to whom to credit that is hard core business. Corey Rooney clearly communicated to the Estate that he was the sole writer of Chicago and as such he is credited alone. I'm sure Dr. Freeze could have done the same. Why he didn't do that is anyone's guess. It could be that he did not care, but another option is that what he allegedly told Damien is maybe not necessarily the gospel (nor is Damien's blog the gospel, BTW).
Click to expand...

I fully understand that much. But the point still remains that the Estate is not always at the top of their game when it comes to album credits. As I've said before, Harvey Jay Mason is not credited for "XSCAPE" even though he is listed on the original registration way back around 2000. Paul Anka was not initially credited for co-writing "THIS IS IT" and was only given credit when he (rightfully) threatened to sue. And let's not forget Michael completely leaving Brad Buxer from "STRANGER IN MOSCOW". Brad could easily have said something, but he didn't. Why? Because he respected Michael and didn't want to cause a fuss. I'm sure this is the same situation.

Regarding the two quotes you took from Damien Shields's article + the Michael Jackson Beat website:

Dr. Freeze said that he "did all the music," which means that he performed all the instruments on the song's original demo. I don't believe he would be stupid enough to suggest that he wrote the instrumental when everyone and their mother knows about "A HORSE WITH NO NAME". Moreover, he again comments that all Michael had to do was "learn the lyrics," which again implies that they were already fully written when it was submitted to him.

Also, Freeze says that Michael worked on the song. "Many wonderful items were added to the song by Michael" -- that heavily implies sound effects to the existing music, not lyrics. If Michael had changed lyrics, why wouldn't Freeze have said so? Freeze has given Michael a substantial amount of praise in these interviews and is not shy to admit that he was a huge influence on him and that he taught him a lot about music, production and the likes. So why, if he is so open about Michael's influence and his genius, would he attempt to lie about credits?

There's no proof that Michael wrote these songs besides a few songwriting credits. Just because Michael is credited (POSTHUMOUSLY, mind you) on something doesn't mean it's true. If you all believe that any songwriting credit must be true, then you must believe that Michael wrote the Cascio tracks.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

AlwaysThere said:
I fully understand that much. But the point still remains that the Estate is not always at the top of their game when it comes to album credits. As I've said before, Harvey Jay Mason is not credited for "XSCAPE" even though he is listed on the original registration way back around 2000. Paul Anka was not initially credited for co-writing "THIS IS IT" and was only given credit when he (rightfully) threatened to sue. And let's not forget Michael completely leaving Brad Buxer from "STRANGER IN MOSCOW". Brad could easily have said something, but he didn't. Why? Because he respected Michael and didn't want to cause a fuss. I'm sure this is the same situation.
Click to expand...

Not crediting someone is not the same situation as undeservedly crediting someone. Not saying one is more right, just that it is a different thing. In fact, you are now arguing for not crediting MJ even when he actually probably creatively contributed to the song. At least Dr. Freeze himself said he did...

Dr. Freeze said that he "did all the music," which means that he performed all the instruments on the song's original demo. I don't believe he would be stupid enough to suggest that he wrote the instrumental when everyone and their mother knows about "A HORSE WITH NO NAME". Moreover, he again comments that all Michael had to do was "learn the lyrics," which again implies that they were already fully written when it was submitted to him.

Also, Freeze says that Michael worked on the song. "Many wonderful items were added to the song by Michael" -- that heavily implies sound effects to the existing music, not lyrics. If Michael had changed lyrics, why wouldn't Freeze have said so? Freeze has given Michael a substantial amount of praise in these interviews and is not shy to admit that he was a huge influence on him and that he taught him a lot about music, production and the likes. So why, if he is so open about Michael's influence and his genius, would he attempt to lie about credits?

There's no proof that Michael wrote these songs besides a few songwriting credits. Just because Michael is credited (POSTHUMOUSLY, mind you) on something doesn't mean it's true. If you all believe that any songwriting credit must be true, then you must believe that Michael wrote the Cascio tracks.
Click to expand...

I think you should realize that just because you interpret his words in a certain way it does not mean that's what he actually meant. He didn't say "Michael added sound effects, not lyrics". That's not something Dr. Freeze said but something you are trying to put in his mouth.

There's no proof that Michael wrote these songs besides a few songwriting credits.
Click to expand...

There is also no proof he did not write anything in them. In fact, Dr. Freeze himself said things like he "changed some details around here or there. He was in full creative control".

"Compared to the extract leak on the internet, many wonderful items were added to the song by Michael. It's more dense, much denser."

He never elaborated on what the things were. And I'm not sure why you go on about the lyrics. If Michael had added something to the music then that may justify the songwriting credit as well. The songwriting credit doesn't say why it was given - for something in the music or for lyrics. Nor does it say how much the contribution was. Just that there was some type of contribution. Which Freeze actually confirms in what he says.

If you all believe that any songwriting credit must be true, then you must believe that Michael wrote the Cascio tracks.
Click to expand...

Nice try. But Freeze himself talks about creative contribution by Michael, so who are you to tell none of those contributions made him deserving of songwriting credit? In pop music it is very inconsistent how credits are given. Sometimes someone is being given credit over a small contribution, sometimes someone with a bigger one does not get credited. (And no, it's not just Stranger in Moscow. I could tell similar stories about Prince, Pink Floyd etc.) There is no official rule for crediting people. If MJ contributed creatively (and Freeze says he did) I do not see any problem with him being credited, even if he was not the main writer. (As far as I am concerned, that is Dewey Bunnell, anyway.)
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

ok i've stayed away from this thread, cuz its hella long but also it seems to be going aroudn in circles.

however, as i read back about 10 -20 pages or so, I do keep seeing a pattern of putting MJ on this pedestal as proof of whether the songs were authentic or not. "He'd never sing this" or "he'd never write that" - and I just had to speak up on it. I personally don't know what the deal is with all of this to be honest lol. But I do know that MJ IS capable of writing not-so-ground breaking songs and lyrics. I know its like impossible to fathom, but it's true! lol

MJ is a musical GENIUS, that much is undebatable. But that does not mean everything he experimented with, made drafts/demos of or just decided to try out ...were all deep and amazingly profound.

There were unreleased tracks that came out while MJ was alive that were 'mediocre' by the standards described in this thread. But thats the thing - its probably why they were in the vaults and not out there for public consumption. :p
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

J5master said:
ok i've stayed away from this thread, cuz its hella long but also it seems to be going aroudn in circles.

however, as i read back about 10 -20 pages or so, I do keep seeing a pattern of putting MJ on this pedestal as proof of whether the songs were authentic or not. "He'd never sing this" or "he'd never write that" - and I just had to speak up on it. I personally don't know what the deal is with all of this to be honest lol. But I do know that MJ IS capable of writing not-so-ground breaking songs and lyrics. I know its like impossible to fathom, but it's true! lol

MJ is a musical GENIUS, that much is undebatable. But that does not mean everything he experimented with, made drafts/demos of or just decided to try out ...were all deep and amazingly profound.

There were unreleased tracks that came out while MJ was alive that were 'mediocre' by the standards described in this thread. But thats the thing - its probably why they were in the vaults and not out there for public consumption. :p
Click to expand...

It's not about MJ not being able to write weak songs. But even his weak songs were in his style. These Cascio songs come across as someone trying to write in his style thematically but it utterly fails. These songs struggle to sound like him and to mimic his pet topics, but it's not him in style. It's hard to explain if you do not hear that, but it's in the nuances. Like when you see a fake painting, you have to look at the tiny details and nuances to realize it's fake.

Anyway, the whole songwriting thing went way off-topic (and I'm guilty of it). I still don't think it can be made an important element of the lawsuit to challenge the songwriting credits. There is no way to prove MJ did not write a word in any of these songs and if he did write just one word in each or even if he is only credited as a songwriter for the samples (like he was credited on that Rihanna song for using a WBSS sample) that could justify the credits. The lawsuit should focus on the singing.
 
^^
It is not that difficult because decades of Michael’s art simply says otherwise. No one has to be a fan to see and hear those differences.

Much has to happen before any artist sings a song in full. There are those who prefer that focus not be on any activity before the completed song because any review takes effort and the results of that review are not beneficial to the defense. Michael's activities before recording songs have been well documented by many music professionals who worked with him throughout those decades and none of it is comparable to Cascio team's tales.

If this goes to trial, the focus will be most likely be vocal analysis and the plaintiff will most likely lose.

No victory for Michael regardless.
 
Tygger;4029240 said:
^^
It is not that difficult because decades of Michael’s art simply says otherwise. No one has to be a fan to see and hear those differences.

Much has to happen before any artist sings a song in full. There are those who prefer that focus not be on any activity before the completed song because any review takes effort and the results of that review are not beneficial to the defense. Michael's activities before recording songs have been well documented by many music professionals who worked with him throughout those decades and none of it is comparable to Cascio team's tales.

If this goes to trial, the focus will be most likely be vocal analysis and the plaintiff will most likely lose.

No victory for Michael regardless.
Click to expand...



You make a good point here. Then there the other question like it was mention in a post how can you give Michael credit for these songs 2 day after he pass away why not give Michael the credit while he was alive. There is alot of questions that will need answers to them i don't think this will go to trial imo i think it will get settled it will be hard. And like you said Tygger No victory for Michael regardless that is so true which every way this go.


In the bold i agree with you on that their will have to focus on that and you are also right their will not have a chance .(plaintiff) if it go that way.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

DanGerouS- said:
so it could be possible that there is a post 2001 APWNN? so far we got the 1998/99 demo and the 2014 mix on xscape.
Click to expand...

Leaked version is 2008 mix made by Michael according to Michael Durham Prince.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

OnirMJ said:
Leaked version is 2008 mix made by Michael according to Michael Durham Prince.
Click to expand...
ok, but it's actually the same as the xscape demo. just 10 sec longer instrumental during the bridge and a longer fade out. nearly no difference.

according to dr. freeze, michael did major changes. wondering what that could be then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top