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"

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

It IS Jason malachi. The first time I heard Breaking News I thought "this is that Mamacita guy again" And everything since then has just confirmed this fact.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

It is Remarkable that they even used vocal-samples from Jason, (i mean the grunts), it's like he didn't wanted to sing more grunts, so the Cascios pasted those noises.
 
JEMFTV;4024754 said:
On Burn 2Nite, why is there a girl moan at the beginning? :|
Click to expand...

She´s speaking spanish, like "Mamacita". Maybe she is the same girl, who knows.

Jason loves so much speak in spanish... but in that leanguage it´s easy for me to see the diferences with Michael voice.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

https://soundcloud.com/pentummjj/keep-your-head-up-vocal-fail

^Anyone who believes Michael Jackson is delivering the vocals in this tiny snippet simply need to take a full day off, sit in the dark with some headphones and play the whole MJ discography starting from OTW era and pay closely attention to his voice, singing abilities and talent.


"I can't even sing"
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Pentum said:
https://soundcloud.com/pentummjj/keep-your-head-up-vocal-fail

^Anyone who believes Michael Jackson is delivering the vocals in this tiny snippet simply need to take a full day off, sit in the dark with some headphones and play the whole MJ discography starting from OTW era and pay closely attention to his voice, singing abilities and talent.


"I can't even sing"
Click to expand...

Mmmmm Different take of the vocal to the released version too? I don't have the original demos here to compare too, but sure sounds it. I can see why they replaced those 2 lines, they sound so bad. Nice to see if the official story is correct and it is MJ they had enough lead vocals to just switch out the lines they thought sounded weak and replace them....... Lemonade
 
I just listened to Fall In Love and Water. If one is willing to suspend belief and believe that to be Michael’s vocals, that is fine. One still has to be willing to believe Michael - a grossly, underrated songwriter who utilized extremely, consistent (thoughtful and meaningful) themes - would sing such lyrics without an extensive rewrite. I find it interesting that Michael who rarely injected lyrics from one song in another sang lyrics from two separate Invincible songs in these two separate Cascio tracks. What are the odds?

“I loved you from the moment of your sigh”
(from Fall In Love)

I cannot imagine Michael ever writing that type of surface lyric or any of them for that matter. I wonder if lyrics and Michael’s past history as a songwriter can be used to prove it is not Michael on these tracks.

By the way, the vocals are not exactly up to par on these two songs.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^ I have the same feelings about the lyrics as about the music and the vocals: someone trying hard to be very MJ-ish but falling short big time.
I mean many of the themes of the songs are what some would typically associate with MJ: anti-media songs (Breaking News), horror themes/anti-media (Monster) etc. But just take a look at a lyric like Is It Scary, Threatened and then Monster. The Cascio songs are such cheap imitations.

Having said that, for the lyrics they could argue that they were written by Eddie/Porte and MJ just sang them, so I don't think lyrics would be decisive in this.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Pentum said:
https://soundcloud.com/pentummjj/keep-your-head-up-vocal-fail

^Anyone who believes Michael Jackson is delivering the vocals in this tiny snippet simply need to take a full day off, sit in the dark with some headphones and play the whole MJ discography starting from OTW era and pay closely attention to his voice, singing abilities and talent.


"I can't even sing"
Click to expand...

The link doesn't work. It looks like they removed it.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Galactus123 said:
The link doesn't work. It looks like they removed it.
Click to expand...

Basically its a couple of lines from KYHU "I can't even breathe, I can't even see" from those recently leaked Cascio demos. The vocals are really bad, its beyond a joke. Funny thing is, the vocals are a different take to the final released version. Its almost as if they figured the vocals sounded sooooooo bad they had to replace them.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Amazing, i finally could hear it in full.

By the way, who introduced those real adlibs from Earth Song to fool fans?.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Kapital77 said:
Amazing, i finally could hear it in full.

By the way, who introduced those real adlibs from Earth Song to fool fans?.
Click to expand...

More than likely Stuart Brawley, he was the adlib/frankenstein vocals guy, its what he does, work vocals. Skilled pro, seasoned playa, pimp daddy Brawley. Just a shame they went full retard on their choice of adlibs.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Ahhh, great know.

I thought were included by the producers who created the new mixes.... Teddy, Burt or Tricky (good name to include them, hahaha).
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Birchey said:
More than likely Stuart Brawley, he was the adlib/frankenstein vocals guy, its what he does, work vocals. Skilled pro, seasoned playa, pimp daddy Brawley. Just a shame they went full retard on their choice of adlibs.
Click to expand...

The ES adlibs in KYHU almost tricked me!
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Question please: can anyone speak to how the three songs that appeared on Michael were chosen from the other Cascio-classic pop songs? Clearly whoever sang KYHU sang the equally dismal, surface Ready To Win. What would be the reasoning to choose KYHU over RTW?

respect77 said:
Having said that, for the lyrics they could argue that they were written by Eddie/Porte and MJ just sang them, so I don't think lyrics would be decisive in this.
Click to expand...

Michael did not have any song writing credits for these tracks, correct?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Tygger said:
Michael did not have any song writing credits for these tracks, correct?
Click to expand...

He is given songwriting credit in the album booklet.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

respect77 said:
He is given songwriting credit in the album booklet.
Click to expand...

Blasphemy!

As you said the themes are similar however, the construction of a song is a deeper discussion and I believe it can have merit here because Michael has four decades of art that these three particular (and the nine remaining, mediocre pop) songs do not compare favorably to.

I do not know if a song analysis expert (considering they exist) would be allowed to testify however, under no circumstances would Michael sing these lyrics. He stated he could only sing what he meant. Fall In Love stood out to me because of the somewhat base lyrics. Michael did not sing about love in that sense. Love had to be substantial and more importantly, true for Michael to sing about it.

Melody construction is also extremely important in Michael's songs. One can simply hum the guitar solos in any Michael Jackson song and none of those solos referenced another song as the guitar solo does in Soldier Boy.

There has been a great discussion here about Michael's work ethic which these songs do not compare favorably against as well.

In all the time Cascio spent personally with Michael, he did not learn as much about a song's construction as fans who simply listened to his songs over the years.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

^ I think to prove that he did not write anything in these songs would be more difficult than to prove he did not sing these songs. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that these are very weak songs both musically and lyrically - not up to Michael's standard at all and I don't believe he had much to do with them. (I sometimes see fans say that the vocals are fake on these songs but the songs are great and I cannot see what they mean because IMO these are poor songs. Michael would not have released any of these IMO. To me from every aspect they just sound like someone is trying too hard to imitate MJ, but falls short.) But the songs are credited to Michael, Eddie and Porte. Sometimes when someone just writes one line in a song he is given writing credits, so in front of a court Eddie could argue that Michael wrote two lines and that's why he was given credit. It would be very difficult to prove Michael did not write any two lines in a song. The sad thing is though that in the writing credits MJ's name is the first - and that indicates he is the main writer of the song. At least usually they put the main writer first in credits. And yes, I agree that this is blasphemy because IMO Michael would have never written these songs this way. And didn't these songs exist before MJ visited the Cascios? So the main writer is definitely not him. But that the main writer's name is usually put first is not something set in stone or an official rule, so again I don't think an argument to challenge the songwriting credits could be based on that.
 
Last edited:
Respect77, I believe it is fairly easy to prove he was not the primary songwriter because as you said, the songs were written before he arrived. Cascio and others can claim Michael changed a line or so however, there is four decades of art that proves Michael would extensively rewrite those Cascio tracks provided he ever actually saw the lyrics. wink, wink

What I am attempting to say is: if this goes to trial, I hope the plaintiff’s legal team will be able to show that for Michael to sing the vocals; many things have to happen to his liking first. If those things did not happen, Michael most likely did not sing those songs. No need to rely simply on vocal analysis when there is four decades of song construction and work ethic that negate most theories that Michael was on these tracks. Vocal analysis should be the last item because if the song itself is not correct (none of the twelve are), Michael would not have wasted time contributing vocals in any form, including vocal guides.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Random side note, am I the only one genuinely disappointed that Michael never recorded some of these songs? With a proper lyrical rewrite, I think some of these could have done well for a comeback. I absolutely adore Stay from beginning to end (the Tricky Stewart version being the better of the two) and Burn Tonight is pretty infectious. Water is also pretty darn great, though it's much too close to Heaven Can Wait to stand on its own. The three songs I just listed are, in my opinion, better than Hold My Hand, and almost as good as Best of Joy, the only two post-2006 songs we've heard as of now.

respect77 said:
^ I think to prove that he did not write anything in these songs would be more difficult than to prove he did not sing these songs. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that these are very weak songs both musically and lyrically - not up to Michael's standard at all and I don't believe he had much to do with them. (I sometimes see fans say that the vocals are fake on these songs but the songs are great and I cannot see what they mean because IMO these are poor songs. Michael would not have released any of these IMO. To me from every aspect they just sound like someone is trying too hard to imitate MJ, but falls short.) But the songs are credited to Michael, Eddie and Porte. Sometimes when someone just writes one line in a song he is given writing credits, so in front of a court Eddie could argue that Michael wrote two lines and that's why he was given credit. It would be very difficult to prove Michael did not write any two lines in a song. The sad thing is though that in the writing credits MJ's name is the first - and that indicates he is the main writer of the song. At least usually they put the main writer first in credits. And yes, I agree that this is blasphemy because IMO Michael would have never written these songs this way. And didn't these songs exist before MJ visited the Cascios? So the main writer is definitely not him. But that the main writer's name is usually put first is not something set in stone or an official rule, so again I don't think an argument to challenge the songwriting credits could be based on that.
Click to expand...

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.

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

AlwaysThere said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. I don't trust in everything that Freeze say. Why would anyone?? If Michael was given credits for Break Of Dawn why wouldn't he get credits for these 2 songs?

I know Freeze wrote the demo (Probably 80% of the finished song), like we heard Heaven Can Wait and Whatever Happens writers demos. But he obviously had some impact on final versions of the songs. That's why he was given writing credits. He co-wrote parts of the song.

For example he didn't do anything for Butterflies, Cry. Or Slave To The Rhythm, Another Day & Chicago.

If they wanted to fake credits they would have done it for other songs too. And Michael while he was alive didn't need that. He was great songwriter, I don't believe he would ever put his name on a song that he didn't write or co-write (helped with writing). Don't insult MJ.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Technically adding/removing/changing one word could give him a songwriter credit and as you pointed it's a common practice to give artists songwriter credit even though they did not write anything.

Whether Michael contributed to the writing of the songs or not does not prove anything in regards to whether he sang them or not.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

AlwaysThere said:
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.
Click to expand...

A Place With No Name was not written solely by Dr. Freeze. It's a rework of A Horse With No Name by America, so main writing credit should go to the original songwriter, not Dr. Freeze. As for who wrote what in the reworked version - we cannot definitely say that MJ did not contribute at all. Same with Blue Gangsta. But in any case this has nothing to do with the Cascio songs. At least we know that Michael DID work on APWNN and Blue Gangsta in the studio with those people and DID sing those songs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Maybe they gave MJ writers credits, because they took adlibs from his own songs? Or maybe because they straight stole samples, melodies, harmonies and chords from MJ's work? I am not trying to sound sarcastic here................I am serious
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Tygger;4026108 said:
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
Click to expand...

I disagree. Keeping the cases simpler and more direct the better. The main issue here is if Michael sang the songs or not. You'll have a group of people who doesn't know a single thing about MJ's songwriting. You'll bring witness after witness to talk about decades his body of music to argue he didn't write the songs. Which can easily be replied with "so what, he was at a friends house and recorded some songs for fun".

Don't forget that the jurors will be random people and not fans.

edited to add: trial strategies is really like thinking 100 steps ahead. We don't even know if this will go to trial or not.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Ivy, vocal analysis is not an exact science; it is subjective.

If the plaintiff's legal team focuses only on analysis, the most mediocre defense lawyer will successfully counter that by simply stating the analysis is too complicated to be understood and is not exact. Not surprisingly, jurors may believe just that. This is why - in a civil case where one only has to show what is more than likely true - the plaintiff's legal team should hedge their bet and show that Michael would have to have certain things in place before ever singing a note. If those things are not aligned, Michael is not going to waste his time or his vocal cords.

Whether this goes to trial or not has no true meaning to me. The songs will remain in Michael's catalog despite whatever outcome (liable, not liable, settlement, no trial). If Michael has no chance to be the victor, it has no meaning for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top