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

[ivy]

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.

so is most anything. Go back to Murray criminal trial. Was everything exactly known or was it subjective theories about what happened? If everything was exact then we wouldn't need lawsuit or jurors. We have trials and jurors because majority of the stuff is subjective / not exact and it's jurors duty to determine what is more likely (in a civil trial).

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.

and you think that's exact? I give you Eddie Murphy's Whatzupwitu that Michael participated. It's an example of a crappy song Michael took part in without writing a single word just because Murphy was a friend. Can you prove that Michael wouldn't ever sing a note for another decades long friend just because the conditions were less than perfect?

it has no meaning for me.

r u sure? why do you care or suggest strategies if it truly has no meaning?

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, the doctor was convicted because he did indeed commit 17 egregious violations resulting in the death of his patient; nothing subjective about that.

This thread shows that many can hear the same three songs and cannot agree if it is Michael or not. This is why the plaintiff’s legal team has to hedge it’s bet.

Michael sang backup vocals for Whatzupwitu. While you may find the lyrics to be mediocre, if you review them, you will see the song is yet another in a decades-long line of consistent themes for Michael. In the case of the Cascio tracks, Michael was lead singer according to the Cascios, not a backup vocalist. As alleged lead singer, I believe Michael would pay much more attention to lyrics.

r u sure? why do you care or suggest strategies if it truly has no meaning?

Very sure. Similar to Michael and lyrics he actually sung, I do not post anything I did not mean.

Just a reminder: I am allowed to discuss and suggest strategy if I feel so inclined despite having no investment in the outcome.

If the offending songs had a chance of being removed from Michael's catalog? WOW! I would be even more detailed with possible winning strategies!

 

[HIStory]

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

Actually that could be true. Or at least used as a reason to give him writing credits when asked in a court. That Rihanna song that sampled Wanna be Startin Somethin - they gave Michael writing credits on that.

 

[HIStory]

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.

Thing is with these Cascio songs that they DO try to emulate MJ's pet topics. You have anti-media songs, you have anti-paparazzi songs, you have horror themes, you have "let's make the world a better place" songs. I'm not sure if a jury that is not made of MJ fans will be able to see the nuances why these songs are most likely not Michael's work but cheap imitations of his work. A jury will not be made of music experts, let alone MJ experts.

To be honest, I don't think the songwriting issue is a big one. Like said, they could easily say they gave MJ credits because of the samples and that's it (like Rihanna gave MJ songwriting credits just for using a WBSS sample). They never made any claims about MJ being the main writer of these songs. In fact, I think it was admitted that these are Eddie and Porte's songs. To prove MJ never changed a word in them would be very difficult, but even if it was possible they could still claim they gave him credits for using the samples.

I think the case should focus on the vocals.

 

[Kapital77]

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

But i think Jason recorded the vocals (including the adlibs from Stuart) just after the first register. That´s why i believe they only registered LYRICS, IDEAS (MJSONG BOOK) or melodies with the name of MICHAEL JACKSON when they made the first register (2009):

Indeed, two days after Jackson died–on June 27, 2009–Cascio filed a copyright claim along with Michael Jackson and another songwriter for something called “MJ Songbook.” The filing is just for lyrics.

I also believe they registered the Porte version on a early filing (JPEG collection) for the upcoming album of Jame$ Porte (THE SLIDESHOW):

An earlier filing. from March 2008, is labeled “JPEC Collection.” The song titles in each collection are not specified in the Library of Congress’s database, but it’s possible that Cascio updated his 2008 filing after Jackson died to reflect the superstar’s contribution to material Cascio had already written–and wisely registered.

Stupid Roger (Frank DiLe:big_boss:´s) Friend-man, he showed us EVERYTHING we needed to know.


------------------------------------------


By the way, there are many fake mixes between the "Monster" of Lady Gaga and the "Monster" of Jason Malachi. Anyone think Ca$cio used anything from that song to complete their Frankenstein song?:

[video=youtube;GsE0GvNNl28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsE0GvNNl28[/video]

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Thing is with these Cascio songs that they DO try to emulate MJ's pet topics. You have anti-media songs, you have anti-paparazzi songs, you have horror themes, you have "let's make the world a better place" songs. I'm not sure if a jury that is not made of MJ fans will be able to see the nuances why these songs are most likely not Michael's work but cheap imitations of his work. A jury will not be made of music experts, let alone MJ experts.

To be honest, I don't think the songwriting issue is a big one. Like said, they could easily say they gave MJ credits because of the samples and that's it (like Rihanna gave MJ songwriting credits just for using a WBSS sample). They never made any claims about MJ being the main writer of these songs. In fact, I think it was admitted that these are Eddie and Porte's songs. To prove MJ never changed a word in them would be very difficult, but even if it was possible they could still claim they gave him credits for using the samples.

I think the case should focus on the vocals.

I agree with your post.

 

[Skywatcher]

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

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.

I just listened to the demo for the first time. I was never one of extreme opinions either way on any of the Cascio tracks, but the KYHU is an actual joke if anyone expects me to buy that it is Michael singing that.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, first, Michael does not have a monopoly on those themes.

The way he discussed those themes via song compare to how those themes are discussed on the Cascio tracks are two distinctly different things. Simply put: one is deeper, one is surface. One does not have to be a fan to know that.

Choose a theme and transcribe the lyrics for a song written by Michael and a song allegedly co-written with the Cascio team. Before comparing notes, notice how easy it is to transcribe the Cascio team song where oftentimes, songs Michael actually sung, will have at least one moment where it is difficult to discern the lyrics. (This speaks to Michael's emotion and vocal delivery which is decidedly absent on all Cascio tracks.) When comparing notes, it is fairly easy to gauge if Michael changed lyrics or not, fan or not due to how the theme is discussed. The purpose of the exercise is to show what has to happen before Michael commits to a song and decides to sing a note.

Second, provided this goes to trial, vocal analysis will definitely be relied on and the defense will most likely be found not liable because of it.

Vocal analysis is not an exact science and it should be no surprise that results will most likely favor an expert’s opinion. It will be left to the jurors to decide if they trust a plaintiff who may be portrayed as a disgruntled, grieving Michael Jackson fan (please do not forget the reputation of Michael Jackson fans which is not exactly favorable, a.k.a., *****s themselves) or the Estate/Sony entities.

 

[HIStory]

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

^ I don't see how your proposal of focusing on the lyrics would make it a more exact science. I agree that these are not Michael's lyrics, but the whole argument about the lyrics is pretty much moot when Cascio can go up on the stand and say that he gave Michael writing credits because of the samples. Or because he changed two words in each song. There is absolutely no way to prove that "Michael would never sing a song like this with these lyrics". See Ivy's point about Whatzupwitu. And in any case, giving someone writing credits is not a crime. There are a number of Elvis songs where he is given writing credits and he did not write a dot in those songs. It's within the songwriters' right to give songwriting credit to someone even if that person did not write anything. I have seen people suing about NOT being given credit but I have never seen people suing about being given credit. That is because if you are given songwriting credit that means money for you.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, the point is not moot. It would encourage the Cascio team to explain the reasoning behind Michael receiving songwriting credits two days after his passing as per Kapital77’s post.

Regarding Whatzupwitu, you may have missed my response. Michael was a backup vocalist, not lead singer so the Whatzupwitu argument is not quite lukewarm.

 

[Kapital77]

I tend to believe Cascios, Porte & Dileo start to think on this fraud (the use of Jason Malachi as MJ to fool Sony & fans) maybe a month or few months after they registered the LYRICS in 2009.

They didn´t have enought time to think on using Jason Malachi to make fraudulent tracks. That´s why i believe they only wanted to register some previous work with Porte (LYRICS, etc...) as it was made with/for MJ. They had a complete year to create those songs (wait for "THIS IS IT" for new ideas ("Water", "Black Widow")... till Roger Friedman/DiLeo spoke about it: http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/05/02/exclusive-michael-jackson-recorded-a-new-album-in-2007

 

[JEMFTV]

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

I just listened to the demo for the first time. I was never one of extreme opinions either way on any of the Cascio tracks, but the KYHU is an actual joke if anyone expects me to buy that it is Michael singing that.

"Soldier Boy" sucks so bad, even John Branca wouldn't believe that it is his voice.

 

[Tygger]

till Roger Friedman/DiLeo spoke about it: http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/05/02/exclusive-michael-jackson-recorded-a-new-album-in-2007

From the article:

According to one source who’s heard the material, Michael’s vocals are “perfect.”

laughs

The question now, of course, is what happens next. The Jackson estate just signed a record deal with Sony Music that could be worth $200 million, but it includes re-releases of previously recorded music, live albums, and an album of unreleased songs that were in the Sony vaults or recorded during Jackson’s contracted time with the label.

That deal does not include newly discovered material. This could mean that other record companies could bid for the collection of songs.

It did not happen that way. Is what Friedman reported about the deal correct? Seems plausible to me. A bit illogical for Estate/Sony to seek out songs for purchase outside of what was in the vault at no charge.

Over the years, Jackson reciprocated the Cascios’ hospitality with enormous generosity. Although the Cascios were not named in Jackson’s will, the song tracks should prove to be multi-million dollar bonanza—and a lasting gift to people whom he really considered family.

And there you have it. Michael owed the Cascios nothing.

 

[Kapital77]

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

Roger was the speaking voice of Ca$cios and DiLeo to fool fans and to scare Sony. He attacked McClain because he knew those tracks didn't have MJ voice.

He was the one who sold MJ sung "Water" on "This is it".

 

[AlwaysThere]

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

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?

This comes directly from Damien Shields, who has spoken to Dr. Freeze one-on-one. Moreover, why shouldn't we trust him? What has he done in the past to make us question his credibility?

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.

My apologies; I know Dewey Bunnell deserves credit for APWNN. As far as the credits go, read above.

 

[OnirMJ]

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

This comes directly from Damien Shields, who has spoken to Dr. Freeze one-on-one. Moreover, why shouldn't we trust him? What has he done in the past to make us question his credibility?

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)?

 

[#MJforever57]

Respect77, the point is not moot. It would encourage the Cascio team to explain the reasoning behind Michael receiving songwriting credits two days after his passing as per Kapital77’s post.

Regarding Whatzupwitu, you may have missed my response. Michael was a backup vocalist, not lead singer so the Whatzupwitu argument is not quite lukewarm.

I would love to hear the answer to this question.

I tend to believe Cascios, Porte & Dileo start to think on this fraud (the use of Jason Malachi as MJ to fool Sony & fans) maybe a month or few months after they registered the LYRICS in 2009.

They didn´t have enought time to think on using Jason Malachi to make fraudulent tracks. That´s why i believe they only wanted to register some previous work with Porte (LYRICS, etc...) as it was made with/for MJ. They had a complete year to create those songs (wait for "THIS IS IT" for new ideas ("Water", "Black Widow")... till Roger Friedman/DiLeo spoke about it: http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/05/02/exclusive-michael-jackson-recorded-a-new-album-in-2007

I read the article. If this was a fraud it will come out.


I don't understand why would their have to use these tracks in the first place when there is all of that music in the vault. If it turn out that these tracks are fake Estate/Sony are responsible for the flop of Michael(album. All their had to do was to get them from the vault maybe Michael would have sold better because it was all Michael. Their own the fans.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Tygger- A bit illogical for Estate/Sony to seek out songs for purchase outside of what was in the vault at no charge.


Excalty

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Roger was the speaking voice of Ca$cios and DiLeo to fool fans and to scare Sony. He attacked McClain because he knew those tracks didn't have MJ voice.

He was the one who sold MJ sung "Water" on "This is it".

Shaken my head.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

The most recent songs Michael worked on in the years prior to his passing, would be the real money makers for the Estate, I would think. Think about it, people heard 80's Michael Jackson, they've heard 90's Michael Jackson, and they've heard Invincible. Post trial Michael material is RARE as far as the general public goes and even for some of the fanbase. The Estate knows this, so they sought out that material. It's the same why Will.I.Am was among the first contacted, for the material he had, because he was one of the last to work with Michael. That's probably why they figured the Cascio tracks to be so lucrative. The idea of 12 brand new Michael Jackson songs from 2007 is quite appealing to a record label and the deceased artists Estate, I would assume.

There's also the possibility that perhaps there isn't all that much in the vaults anyways.

 

[DanGerouS-]

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

The most recent songs Michael worked on in the years prior to his passing, would be the real money makers for the Estate, I would think. Think about it, people heard 80's Michael Jackson, they've heard 90's Michael Jackson, and they've heard Invincible. Post trial Michael material is RARE as far as the general public goes and even for some of the fanbase. The Estate knows this, so they sought out that material. It's the same why Will.I.Am was among the first contacted, for the material he had, because he was one of the last to work with Michael. That's probably why they figured the Cascio tracks to be so lucrative. The idea of 12 brand new Michael Jackson songs from 2007 is quite appealing to a record label and the deceased artists Estate, I would assume.

There's also the possibility that perhaps there isn't all that much in the vaults anyways.

RedOne was also one of the last. wasnt there a quote of him, where he claimed he has material for an "album"?

releasing the most recent work, should have happened in 2010 already.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

Reid took what about 24 songs or so from the vault while their were doing Xscape. The Estate could have give us demo of songs Michael had did i would have been please with that plus the seven songs it would have been all Michael no question ask.

 

[#MJforever57]

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

RedOne was also one of the last. wasnt there a quote of him, where he claimed he has material for an "album"?

releasing the most recent work, should have happened in 2010 already.

Who know.

 

[dam2040]

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

Why didn't they put out all/most of the 12 for the album? Surely that would've made more sense for the stupid marketing angle of it being the 'album MJ was going to release' as these songs are all "2007". Obviously thankful they didn't as the 3 are bad enough.

 

[HIStory]

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

Double post. sorry

 

[HIStory]

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

Nevermind

 

[DanGerouS-]

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

Why didn't they put out all/most of the 12 for the album? Surely that would've made more sense for the stupid marketing angle of it being the 'album MJ was going to release' as these songs are all "2007". Obviously thankful they didn't as the 3 are bad enough.

cause the others sound even more like jason.
but if they had put out such an album (the 12 cascios), it wouldve caused some insane shitstorm.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

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

Why didn't they put out all/most of the 12 for the album? Surely that would've made more sense for the stupid marketing angle of it being the 'album MJ was going to release' as these songs are all "2007". Obviously thankful they didn't as the 3 are bad enough.

Because there were doubts about the songs from the moment the Estate acquired them. John McClain reportedly heard Soldier Boy and came to the conclusion that none of the songs were Michael. This created a rift between he and Branca supposedly, and Branca won out, trying his luck with just 3 of the songs, instead of all of the 12.

If we're to believe what Rooney says, that'd make more sense, since nobody could conclusively come to the conclusion that it was actually Michael on the records, try three tracks and see what the reaction is. Surely if they had made a whole album of the Cascio songs, the shitstorm would've been phenomenal, and there would probably be a lot more legal ramifications for them, if found out that an entire album of supposed Michael Jackson songs is all fraudulent and not Michael Jackson at all.

 

[Tygger]

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

The most recent songs Michael worked on in the years prior to his passing, would be the real money makers for the Estate, I would think.

Fortunately, Xscape has proven otherwise.

Why didn't they put out all/most of the 12 for the album? Surely that would've made more sense for the stupid marketing angle of it being the 'album MJ was going to release' as these songs are all "2007". Obviously thankful they didn't as the 3 are bad enough.

Because there were doubts about the songs from the moment the Estate acquired them. John McClain reportedly heard Soldier Boy and came to the conclusion that none of the songs were Michael. This created a rift between he and Branca supposedly, and Branca won out, trying his luck with just 3 of the songs, instead of all of the 12.

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.

 

[Dorian]

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

Does anybody hear what I hear?