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"

HIStoric said:
Not gonna lie, this controversy has me pretty conflicted. I mean, I care a shit load about Michael's legacy and it can annoy me when people downplay what he achieved throughout his life as well as his artistic works after Thriller/Bad... but despite all that, I just can't seem to care that much for this whole controversy? I've been pretty much on the fence since the beginning but I am edging towards the idea it isn't Michael.

I think it's probably because this started years and years ago and I'm 'over it' by now? And I actually think it's good 'Michael' went under the radar and was largely ignored by everyone. Aside from this controversy, it's just simply not that good of an album. I haven't had the album in my iTunes for years and I played about 4/10 songs on there regularly - don't miss it.

I think it's also because, aside from TII as I see the film/song as the final 'curtain call' for him, I don't usually consider posthumous releases as part of an artist's legacy either? Therefore I don't really think it's had much of a dent (if at all) on his legacy. He has one of the biggest legacies of any artist in HIStory, 3 minuscule songs on an under-the-radar posthumous album aren't going to put a dent in something so huge, imho anyway.

In saying that, I do understand why many fans are up-in-arms about this controversy and I too would be pretty happy if they just silently took down 'Michael' from his discography and stuff. Like being honest, I might bop my head to a song or two on there but overall it's just not a good album worthy of Michael's name - genuine vocals or not. Not too sure about a public apology though, the public have largely forgotten about this and putting it back into the spotlight (which a public apology would) has the potential to do further damage to Michael's future releases. I fear this lawsuit might do the same if it makes the mainstream headlines.

Just my two (honest) cents I suppose.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel about it!

I'd rather they didn't exist, but I don't think it harms MJ's legacy at all. People outside the community barely knows they exist.

Quick question though, on the 3 tracks in particular, do we know/think that MJ had any involvement? E.g. were lyrics found by MJ? Or any vocal snippets whatsoever on the songs that were then built upon by others?

I'm just wondering if there is any Michael there or are they purely made up?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I remember there was an article from 2010, which claimed that lyrics sheets from Michael were found.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

I was happy with the 'Michael' album in its entirety. I'm not debating it, it is what it is. Hoping the truth will out at some stage but I don't think the controversy hurts his legacy at all. Now you can all shoot me. lol
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

JEMFTV said:
I remember there was an article from 2010, which claimed that lyrics sheets from Michael were found.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap. That article was written by Roger Friedman, the infamous "Work tapes" article. No such work tapes or lyric sheets from Michael have surfaced.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

HIStoric said:
Not gonna lie, this controversy has me pretty conflicted. I mean, I care a shit load about Michael's legacy and it can annoy me when people downplay what he achieved throughout his life as well as his artistic works after Thriller/Bad... but despite all that, I just can't seem to care that much for this whole controversy? I've been pretty much on the fence since the beginning but I am edging towards the idea it isn't Michael.

I think it's probably because this started years and years ago and I'm 'over it' by now? And I actually think it's good 'Michael' went under the radar and was largely ignored by everyone. Aside from this controversy, it's just simply not that good of an album. I haven't had the album in my iTunes for years and I played about 4/10 songs on there regularly - don't miss it.

I think it's also because, aside from TII as I see the film/song as the final 'curtain call' for him, I don't usually consider posthumous releases as part of an artist's legacy either? Therefore I don't really think it's had much of a dent (if at all) on his legacy. He has one of the biggest legacies of any artist in HIStory, 3 minuscule songs on an under-the-radar posthumous album aren't going to put a dent in something so huge, imho anyway.

In saying that, I do understand why many fans are up-in-arms about this controversy and I too would be pretty happy if they just silently took down 'Michael' from his discography and stuff. Like being honest, I might bop my head to a song or two on there but overall it's just not a good album worthy of Michael's name - genuine vocals or not. Not too sure about a public apology though, the public have largely forgotten about this and putting it back into the spotlight (which a public apology would) has the potential to do further damage to Michael's future releases. I fear this lawsuit might do the same if it makes the mainstream headlines.

Just my two (honest) cents I suppose.
Click to expand...


You're free to feel whatever you like and I hear you, but just because one person feels like "it ain't that big of deal" doesn't mean everyone has to and that a person should be berated for deciding to take this to court in search of a definitive answer once and for all. If this puts the situation back into the spotlight, via a public apology, so? I'm having a hard time understanding why some people feel this would be a problem, the Estate would have brought that upon themselves via Howard Weitzmann, and the whole seemingly nonchalant attitude from them about it all. Sure, they said they'd no longer be releasing and promoting the songs, yet they never admitted to their screw up, they continue to push out Howard Weitzmann in the defense of these songs as if we're stupid, and we should just take Weitzmann's word for it despite a lack of credentials of these supposed experts who tested these songs and co-signed their claims.


This lawsuit makes it to headlines, if it's reached conclusively that the songs aren't Michael, it's nobody's fault but the Estate's, the exec's would be the ones to suffer from it, Eddie, Porte and the "mysterious vocalist" will be the ones to suffer from it as their career's will reach a permanent standstill, as if it hasn't already. I'm having a difficult time seeing anyone else being affected by this, seeing as Paris was one of the first to out these songs as what they are, fakes, I think she'd personally welcome something like a public apology. And I don't see this affecting current and future products all that much in the long run. So I say bring it on, and whatever happens after that, let the Estate deal with it, as they were obviously willing to do so by putting out questionable songs in the first place.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

HIStoric said:
Not gonna lie, this controversy has me pretty conflicted. I mean, I care a shit load about Michael's legacy and it can annoy me when people downplay what he achieved throughout his life as well as his artistic works after Thriller/Bad... but despite all that, I just can't seem to care that much for this whole controversy? I've been pretty much on the fence since the beginning but I am edging towards the idea it isn't Michael.

I think it's probably because this started years and years ago and I'm 'over it' by now? And I actually think it's good 'Michael' went under the radar and was largely ignored by everyone. Aside from this controversy, it's just simply not that good of an album. I haven't had the album in my iTunes for years and I played about 4/10 songs on there regularly - don't miss it.

I think it's also because, aside from TII as I see the film/song as the final 'curtain call' for him, I don't usually consider posthumous releases as part of an artist's legacy either? Therefore I don't really think it's had much of a dent (if at all) on his legacy. He has one of the biggest legacies of any artist in HIStory, 3 minuscule songs on an under-the-radar posthumous album aren't going to put a dent in something so huge, imho anyway.

In saying that, I do understand why many fans are up-in-arms about this controversy and I too would be pretty happy if they just silently took down 'Michael' from his discography and stuff. Like being honest, I might bop my head to a song or two on there but overall it's just not a good album worthy of Michael's name - genuine vocals or not. Not too sure about a public apology though, the public have largely forgotten about this and putting it back into the spotlight (which a public apology would) has the potential to do further damage to Michael's future releases. I fear this lawsuit might do the same if it makes the mainstream headlines.

Just my two (honest) cents I suppose.
Click to expand...

That's mostly how I feel about this too. I've been over it for a while now. Nobody cares for these songs outside of a few hard core fans really.

Tony R said:
I'd rather they didn't exist, but I don't think it harms MJ's legacy at all. People outside the community barely knows they exist.
Click to expand...

It didn't harm his legacy, the controversy was only inside the fan community really, outside the fans it was a blip on the radar.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

WhoIsIt89 said:
You're free to feel whatever you like and I hear you, but just because one person feels like "it ain't that big of deal" doesn't mean everyone has to and that a person should be berated for deciding to take this to court in search of a definitive answer once and for all.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying everyone had to agree with me nor do I recall berating anyone for taking this to court? I was merely explaining why I felt that way and that I fear what effects this lawsuit might have on future posthumous releases, that's all.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

To me, it doesn't really matter who knows about it, general public, hardcore fans, whatever. It's mostly about the fact that those songs exist, that this even happened. It's about MICHAEL himself. Not about us, or the general public, or anyone else. Get the songs off his discography, that's all. He doesn't deserve that.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Arklove said:
To me, it doesn't really matter who knows about it, general public, hardcore fans, whatever. It's mostly about the fact that those songs exist, that this even happened. It's about MICHAEL himself. Not about us, or the general public, or anyone else. Get the songs off his discography, that's all. He doesn't deserve that.
Click to expand...

To me, it's simply a matter of historical truth. MJ is a historical figure now, and we need to ascertain the truth about these songs, for history and posterity's sake.

I'd feel the same way about Elvis or Frank Sinatra. It's not so much about taking the songs off the discography as it is about finally knowing the truth -- which we don't know yet, even though some act like they do.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

kreen said:
To me, it's simply a matter of historical truth. MJ is a historical figure now, and we need to ascertain the truth about these songs, for history and posterity's sake.

I'd feel the same way about Elvis or Frank Sinatra. It's not so much about taking the songs off the discography as it is about finally knowing the truth -- which we don't know yet, even though some act like they do.
Click to expand...

Well nobody's acting. Some know the truth and some are firmly denying it. With your post you clearly are denying the truth and go to great lenths to justify why a guy who doesn't sound like MJ is MJ.

Let me put it simply, the guy who sings on the Cascio songs doesn't sound like MJ for the simplest reason there is: it's NOT MJ!
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

exactly. its frankly insulting imo to everything mj achevied to say these songs would have any effect on his musical legacy. ppl need to look outside the bubble instead of thinking the public care like they do or even have a clue about this issue

serendipity said:
That's mostly how I feel about this too. I've been over it for a while now. Nobody cares for these songs outside of a few hard core fans really.



It didn't harm his legacy, the controversy was only inside the fan community really, outside the fans it was a blip on the radar.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Arklove said:
To me, it doesn't really matter who knows about it, general public, hardcore fans, whatever. It's mostly about the fact that those songs exist, that this even happened. It's about MICHAEL himself. Not about us, or the general public, or anyone else. Get the songs off his discography, that's all. He doesn't deserve that.
Click to expand...

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

Finally someone cares enough to take some action.. I think Teddy Riley should also get his a$$ sued for this... I say all fans should join forces and go with a class action against the estate and Sony. While at it, why not taking a class action and sue Murray for being responsible for MJ's death? This of all the agony he caused to millions of fans around the world... I always thought we are not doing enough for Michael... Keeping the legacy is not enough...
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

kreen said:
To me, it's simply a matter of historical truth. MJ is a historical figure now, and we need to ascertain the truth about these songs, for history and posterity's sake.

I'd feel the same way about Elvis or Frank Sinatra. It's not so much about taking the songs off the discography as it is about finally knowing the truth -- which we don't know yet, even though some act like they do.
Click to expand...

Well, I think, as Bumper said, some people know the truth (just listen to the songs, there's the truth right there), but I still don't agree with the songs being on his discography in the first place, whether they're him or not. They DO NOT sound anything like him and have no business being called MJ songs simply because of the state they're in - they sound horrible if they are him, why does he deserve that?

It's important that someone did finally take action, even if just to light a fire under someone's ass. We haven't forgot about this, and we never will.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

As much as I am convinced these songs are not Michael, I'm pretty surprised to hear so many people say things like, "If you can't tell these songs are fake, you must be deaf."

Let's be fair here: whether or not you think the songs are real, you're a Michael Jackson fan. Why else would you be a member on a fan forum, defending your opinion with such dedication? I think it's totally fine to debate over how the songs sound and any back story regarding their creation, but I think we all need to take a breather and re-evaluate ourselves before we start questioning anyone's fandom. (People haven't been doing this as often, but there has been a big increase since this thread was opened.) Kreen, for example, is a user I have never met or spoken to outside of this thread, and s/he and I have two different opinions on the songs. I still try to approach them with as much respect as possible, because what comes from being rude?

Also, we can't judge people for enjoying these songs. I saw one person say that it was "a shame" that someone liked Monster. Really? Honestly, I like several of the Cascio tracks, though I am completely against the idea of them being marketed as being recorded by Michael Jackson. Stay, Water and All Right are damn good pop tunes...by Jason Malachi.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

......So when is the first/next court date scheduled for?
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

CrazyVegasMJ said:
......So when is the first/next court date scheduled for?
Click to expand...

The Estate, Sony, Cascios, have to file their response first and there's probably going to be some back and forth with filings before the judge schedules a hearing. I don't think it's going to be soon.
 
06/26/2014 in Department 310, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Order-Complex Determination - Case Determined to be Complex

A “Complex Case” is a civil action that requires continuous judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burden on litigants, counsel and the Court. It is designed to expedite cases, keep costs reasonable, and promote an effective decision making process by the Court, parties and counsel. Local Rule 3.3(k) governs the procedure for the determination of complex case designation.

06/26/2014 Order (Initial Status Conference Order )
Filed by Court

09/19/2014 at 09:00 am in department 310 Initial Status Conference
 
ivy;4024509 said:
06/26/2014 in Department 310, Kenneth R. Freeman, Presiding
Order-Complex Determination - Case Determined to be Complex

A “Complex Case” is a civil action that requires continuous judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burden on litigants, counsel and the Court. It is designed to expedite cases, keep costs reasonable, and promote an effective decision making process by the Court, parties and counsel. Local Rule 3.3(k) governs the procedure for the determination of complex case designation.

06/26/2014 Order (Initial Status Conference Order )
Filed by Court

09/19/2014 at 09:00 am in department 310 Initial Status Conference
Click to expand...

So does it mean there's going to be a hearing on September 19? That's what I'm getting from this.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

HIStoric said:
I don't recall saying everyone had to agree with me nor do I recall berating anyone for taking this to court? I was merely explaining why I felt that way and that I fear what effects this lawsuit might have on future posthumous releases, that's all.
Click to expand...

I never said you personally. You however, along with others seem to question why this person decided to go this route instead of continuing to "let it go", as it seems to be exactly what those of you are saying with the whole "the public didn't care, why should you" analogy. While others in this thread have berated her for it, going as far to call this person an imbecile for deciding to seek out the truth.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

serendipity said:
So does it mean there's going to be a hearing on September 19? That's what I'm getting from this.
Click to expand...

yes but it's a initial status conference which is mainly about scheduling, court processes and so on. So while this case is starting, I wouldn't expect ant significant news or developments for a while.
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

When those three songs were put on the ''Michael'' album Michael turned over in his grave
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

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

Chamife said:
Where's StellaJackson?
Click to expand...

Off around the globe doing a Liam Neeson "Taken" style manhunt of all Defendants involved.
 
don't know if the same person but saw this on you tube :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDRTghGZ7XU

Reply
·
1
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif













<header class="lea">[h=3]Stella Jackson[/h]1 week ago

</header>


Perfect, perfect!!! Video!!MJ be alive in my heart!!!!!&#65279;




Reply
·
49
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif



Hide replies


Thinkand van Watch
1 week ago




The song i like, but the hologram not so much the face isn't Michael Jackson&#65279;



Reply
·
2
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif




Stella Jackson
1 week ago




Is very good song!!!!&#65279;



Reply
·
2
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif




Thinkand van Watch
1 week ago




Yes the song is good but the face the dance its not even close by MJ the king &#65279;



Reply
·
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif




Stella Jackson
1 week ago




are computers! what to do he's not alive. wish I be alive&#65279;



Reply
·
3
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif




Thinkand van Watch
1 we













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

Judging on broken english its not the same person, but StellaJackson has been checking in here :D
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

Birchey said:
Off around the globe doing a Liam Neeson "Taken" style manhunt of all Defendants involved.
Click to expand...
Then he's excused :D

@ bluesky: That's Stella Jackson. I mean StellaJackson ;)

He's on the board, but I miss him in this thread.

















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

^^ oh ok, just wondering when i saw that!
 
Re: Estate, Cascio & Porte sued - Forensic Analysis says MJ is NOT singing the 3 songs on "MICHAEL"

On Burn 2Nite, why is there a girl moan at the beginning? :|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top