Chamife
Proud Member
It's not embarrassing to fight for what you believe is right. I'm proud of a lot of 'doubters'.
It's a touchy subject and emotions run high, also due to the lack of respondance from the Cascio side.
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
It's a touchy subject and emotions run high, also due to the lack of respondance from the Cascio side.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
Roger Friedman is criticising Joe Vogel in his latest article for appearing in Bad 25. It just seems like sour grapes because Vogel questioned the Cascio tracks in his book. Friedman was so supportive of the tracks because his source was Dileo, who in turn was representing James Porte and negotiated the whole Cascio deal. Whether Friedman really believes the songs are Michael or not is anybodys guess. He isn't very bright either way. But when it comes to Dileo I just don't know. There are many questions I would like to ask him. But unfortunately we can't.
Lucilla
Proud Member
StellaJackson;3742708 said:
lol
This is what he wrote in his article: "I would rather have seen Randy Taraborelli, who at least is an expert on this part of Michael’s life."Facepalm!
Like Garden I do think if this songs turn out to be Michael there would be a level of embarrassment. Of course there's nothing wrong n regards to fighting for what you believe in and becoming emotional but honestly in some instances the vocals, the songs are highly criticized in a negative way. So if it turns out to be Michael it would be like people trashing Michael. For example wouldn't you feel embarrassed if it turns out to be Michael and you called the vocals as goat vocals?
on a semi-related note as an example : if you know it Michael Bush is auctioning some of Michael's clothes as well as autographed items. There had been some autographs that has looked off to some people. So they started questioning and even claiming the signatures might be fakes. They reached out to Juliens who stated they actually have proof of Michael signing them but have no intention of releasing the proof. Later on some people said that Julien's told them Michael would have operations done and then stay at Michael Bush's house while recovering and while still drugged and sign stuff during such times. They said this is the reason why some signatures look off and that's the reason why they won't release the proof.
Now I don't know if this is true or not but can you imagine a similar thing here? What if Michael was off during recording for some reason and that you trashed him? Isn't that a little embarrassing?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Yes, Michael was OFF (the wall)... The proof, he admitted it himself in a song
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
Being "off" doesn't make someone change their entire accent, pronounciation and overall vocal style to that of a completely different person.
WildStyle
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,754
- Points
- 38
If the Cascio songs turn out to be Malachi, would you feel embarassed that you basically disrespected Michael by saying that he sounds like and can be easily mistaken for this guy? I think Michael would be beside himself that people could actually think that that third rate vocalist is him.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Sounding off on 12 songs is not an unfortunate occurence, but a challenging objective nearly impossible to achieve when your name is Michael Jackson.
all of which that some people do not agree with. You know for example I repeatedly stated that Malachi's vocal style is inferior to Cascio vocal style. So that's an irrelevant point from my opinion. I'm also surprised to see such things are mentioned like a fact. Even Bumper who is seen as an expert on accent said that 90% if the stuff cannot be determined either way. He did mention the possibility of some being not Michael but he never addressed the possibility of the odd accent being Porte.
Nope, it would be my mistake and my inferior ability. Or the ability of the impersonator. It would got nothing to do with Michael. It's not like I trashed the songs. and there's nothing surprising in mistaking him with a soundalike who by definition is supposed to sound alike him.
Let me give an example : Jamie Foxx did a wonderful job in portraying Ray Charles to the point of winning an Oscar. Just because a person believes Jamie Foxx doing a perfect impersonation of Ray Charles doesn't take away anything from the superiority of Ray Charles.
So you can see that is I'm mistaken it would either mean 1) I suck in such determination or 2) the soundalike does a really good job. Neither one has any effect on Michael and his perfection.
We haven't really debated 2000 pages worth , have we? We have been going in circles and repeating ourselves for a long time now. And the Michael Bush event I'm talking about has over 50 pages in a week in an autograph forum. I personally do not think that the length of the discussion has any effect on the subject.
Aniram
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,191
- Points
- 48
Yeah, a signature is so much different than your voice footprint. I write my signature so badly sometimes and Michael admitted he didn't remember signing certain things. But this is much different. It's like if someone tried to pass this as MJ's signature:
not really that different. There are handwriting experts and autograph authentication people all of whom taking part in the said discussion. They would strongly refuse anything you have said. and honestly it's not like anything vocal related is black or white. If it was we wouldn't be having this discussion wouldn't we?
LOL.
It's going in circles. I repeated myself a lot of times. So it's not like we made 2000 pages worth of new discussion. We perhaps have 20 pages worth of unique material and we repeated it a hundred times.Aniram
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,191
- Points
- 48
You're right, ivy, and some of the signatures very well be fake or they may just be from a time when Michael wasn't writing very well. However, I think the Cascio songs are different in a couple ways.
First, Michael isn't known for his signature, but his vocals and his dancing, but mostly his vocals because they're played over and over on the radio every day. Second, the fans have become experts of Michael's voice and hearing. Knowing music and detecting tones, pitches, frequencies and all that come more naturally than knowing how to expertly analyze someone's signature, because it's much more personal. The signature experts might disagree with me there, but my point is that I think fans generally become experts at being able to detect the vocalists voice, not experts at detecting a signature.
I mean, I feel like I know music really well and I have written a lot of music myself, but I see people on here, all over the internet and in real life who know a lot more than I do and I can tell when someone knows music and when they don't. I was a 'believer' for a bit but became a 'doubter' when I refused to just accept my own beliefs as the 100% truth and kept asking questions and thinking about it and analyzing. I then finally realized and it all fell together that it really most likely with a very high certainty isn't Michael, which is why my reaction was the way it was initially and all of those things. (If you're wondering if I still question this position, of course I do but none of the supportive arguments have worked for me yet)
I don't know if you're this type of person, ivy, but I know I'm not. A person who can listen to a song and say "This song is in this key. The tempo is... 92. That was this chord, that was this chord." But I notice a lot of fans who have that level of listening skill and music knowledge. Those are the types of people that doubters keep turning out to be. They have excellent ears. I'm still learning and growing in my skill but I think from my experience so far that I have a really good ear for music. I can hear what they are talking about when they describe these things, and my ears have grown from this whole experience in detecting different voices and recognizing the power and quality that Michael had in his voice, even when he wasn't really trying.
From what I've seen, a lot of these doubters are like music code crackers, they can hear little things in the music that a lot of people don't normally pick up on, and they point it out for everyone else. Some people are just that way. That's why it's been months and months and not one believer has been able to come up with a comparison video where the Cascio vocalist and Michael Jackson hit any of the same notes, make any of the same noises, etc. Not one. And why is that? Well, because none of the believers have any musical knowledge to do so, and also there is not one single instance where it happens. However, no other Michael Jackson song in the history of Michael Jackson has had a completely unique sounding voice that can't be compared to an identical note or key or sound he'd previously made.
And basically the only real argument for this is the 'processing', which made Michael's voice sound completely new just for those songs to the point where he doesn't even make a familiar noise without a copy-and-paste.
First, Michael isn't known for his signature, but his vocals and his dancing, but mostly his vocals because they're played over and over on the radio every day. Second, the fans have become experts of Michael's voice and hearing. Knowing music and detecting tones, pitches, frequencies and all that come more naturally than knowing how to expertly analyze someone's signature, because it's much more personal. The signature experts might disagree with me there, but my point is that I think fans generally become experts at being able to detect the vocalists voice, not experts at detecting a signature.
I mean, I feel like I know music really well and I have written a lot of music myself, but I see people on here, all over the internet and in real life who know a lot more than I do and I can tell when someone knows music and when they don't. I was a 'believer' for a bit but became a 'doubter' when I refused to just accept my own beliefs as the 100% truth and kept asking questions and thinking about it and analyzing. I then finally realized and it all fell together that it really most likely with a very high certainty isn't Michael, which is why my reaction was the way it was initially and all of those things. (If you're wondering if I still question this position, of course I do but none of the supportive arguments have worked for me yet)
I don't know if you're this type of person, ivy, but I know I'm not. A person who can listen to a song and say "This song is in this key. The tempo is... 92. That was this chord, that was this chord." But I notice a lot of fans who have that level of listening skill and music knowledge. Those are the types of people that doubters keep turning out to be. They have excellent ears. I'm still learning and growing in my skill but I think from my experience so far that I have a really good ear for music. I can hear what they are talking about when they describe these things, and my ears have grown from this whole experience in detecting different voices and recognizing the power and quality that Michael had in his voice, even when he wasn't really trying.
From what I've seen, a lot of these doubters are like music code crackers, they can hear little things in the music that a lot of people don't normally pick up on, and they point it out for everyone else. Some people are just that way. That's why it's been months and months and not one believer has been able to come up with a comparison video where the Cascio vocalist and Michael Jackson hit any of the same notes, make any of the same noises, etc. Not one. And why is that? Well, because none of the believers have any musical knowledge to do so, and also there is not one single instance where it happens. However, no other Michael Jackson song in the history of Michael Jackson has had a completely unique sounding voice that can't be compared to an identical note or key or sound he'd previously made.
And basically the only real argument for this is the 'processing', which made Michael's voice sound completely new just for those songs to the point where he doesn't even make a familiar noise without a copy-and-paste.
Well we have established that some people are better in hearing than the others and we all know that we can't be all right in this regard. So it means that some of us are right and some of us are wrong at the end of the day.
However it's better if we don't do generalizations. For example you said "because none of the believers have any musical knowledge to do so" , I quite disagree. We have likes of Korgnex and several musicians that worked with Michael does have the musical knowledge. Also it's important to remember that the believers operate on a set of different motivation. For example vibrato argument was quite interesting when it was first made and as a person not necessarily knowledgeable about the topic I asked to a professional musician friend. After being told processing can in fact affect vibrato it became a totally irrelevant point for me. Similarly a doubter might spend the time and effort to demonstrate the vibrato is a match to Malachi however a believer might not feel the show the same effort as it's assumed that the songs are Michael. In other words it's not a matter of ability. You can offer a $1 Million dollars but I wouldn't spend a single second to compare these songs. Why would I? They are officially Michael Jackson songs, there has been no real challenge against them and hearing is subjective. So you have the realize that we are operating on different motivations. Doubters have all the reason in the world to demonstrate , prove and convince people that these vocals aren't Michael. Believers do not have any need to prove that they are Michael.
Oh you should see the discussion. Fans have made hundreds of comparisons of the signature. Apparently we are expert in everything when it comes to Michael.
Anyway I also have to say that I found Bush - signatures debate quite interesting and actually similar to the Cascio debate.
You have a person that had a 25+ year work relationship with Michael , it's highly probable that this person has autographs from him.
These person have $30 - $45 book on the market and auctioning Michael's clothes and even sold Thriller Jacket last year which gave them over a $1 Million payday. So they are clearly not hurting for money. While at the same time autographed items means higher selling prices.
You have some fans who are believing that they are experts that are questioning some signatures. Some look legit some do not. They immediately make comparisons and coming to the conclusions. However at times they are debunking themselves as well. For example one of the initial point that the signatures are fake because Michael did a showy "J". While it's true that in the later years his "J" became a single basic line, he used to sign a showy "J" in the 80s - 90s. There's an expert that says Michael had two signatures, the more showy and the readable one when he sat down and had time to sign it (the one with obvious ch and a showy J and a star at the end) and the quick signature (the straight basic lines and ^^^ writing of his name). There are legit signatures with the showy J which debunks the original point.
There are authentication experts but it happens to be a subjective area. They compare the signatures in question to the known to be legit ones. However now they are comparing the scans of the signatures which they themselves saying isn't enough for an actual evaluation. They need to see the actual signature and look to it closely to compare the pen strokes, pressure points and so on. Even then it's not an exact determination. It's possible for the experts to make a wrong determination.
Then you are given some explanations such as some of the surfaces (clothing, leather, body form etc) was less than ideal for a signature and it can make it look "off" and another alleged explanation that he signed a lot of stuff while he was staying in their house while recovering from surgeries/ treatment and was under the effect of medicine which caused the "off" signatures.
I don't know you but it immediately reminded me of the Cascio debate. Well it might also be because I have seen someone call it Cascio V2.0
However it's better if we don't do generalizations. For example you said "because none of the believers have any musical knowledge to do so" , I quite disagree. We have likes of Korgnex and several musicians that worked with Michael does have the musical knowledge. Also it's important to remember that the believers operate on a set of different motivation. For example vibrato argument was quite interesting when it was first made and as a person not necessarily knowledgeable about the topic I asked to a professional musician friend. After being told processing can in fact affect vibrato it became a totally irrelevant point for me. Similarly a doubter might spend the time and effort to demonstrate the vibrato is a match to Malachi however a believer might not feel the show the same effort as it's assumed that the songs are Michael. In other words it's not a matter of ability. You can offer a $1 Million dollars but I wouldn't spend a single second to compare these songs. Why would I? They are officially Michael Jackson songs, there has been no real challenge against them and hearing is subjective. So you have the realize that we are operating on different motivations. Doubters have all the reason in the world to demonstrate , prove and convince people that these vocals aren't Michael. Believers do not have any need to prove that they are Michael.
Oh you should see the discussion. Fans have made hundreds of comparisons of the signature. Apparently we are expert in everything when it comes to Michael.
Anyway I also have to say that I found Bush - signatures debate quite interesting and actually similar to the Cascio debate.
You have a person that had a 25+ year work relationship with Michael , it's highly probable that this person has autographs from him.
These person have $30 - $45 book on the market and auctioning Michael's clothes and even sold Thriller Jacket last year which gave them over a $1 Million payday. So they are clearly not hurting for money. While at the same time autographed items means higher selling prices.
You have some fans who are believing that they are experts that are questioning some signatures. Some look legit some do not. They immediately make comparisons and coming to the conclusions. However at times they are debunking themselves as well. For example one of the initial point that the signatures are fake because Michael did a showy "J". While it's true that in the later years his "J" became a single basic line, he used to sign a showy "J" in the 80s - 90s. There's an expert that says Michael had two signatures, the more showy and the readable one when he sat down and had time to sign it (the one with obvious ch and a showy J and a star at the end) and the quick signature (the straight basic lines and ^^^ writing of his name). There are legit signatures with the showy J which debunks the original point.
There are authentication experts but it happens to be a subjective area. They compare the signatures in question to the known to be legit ones. However now they are comparing the scans of the signatures which they themselves saying isn't enough for an actual evaluation. They need to see the actual signature and look to it closely to compare the pen strokes, pressure points and so on. Even then it's not an exact determination. It's possible for the experts to make a wrong determination.
Then you are given some explanations such as some of the surfaces (clothing, leather, body form etc) was less than ideal for a signature and it can make it look "off" and another alleged explanation that he signed a lot of stuff while he was staying in their house while recovering from surgeries/ treatment and was under the effect of medicine which caused the "off" signatures.
I don't know you but it immediately reminded me of the Cascio debate. Well it might also be because I have seen someone call it Cascio V2.0
elapentela
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 188
- Points
- 0
Even if it sounds more than "off" for you and for really limited number of people there are still a lot more fans who love BN, Monster and KYHU from Michael album. You can complain as much as you want and it won't change anything as long as there are MJ's fans
who enjoy the product. I personally have no doubt about the authenticity of Michael's voice and will repeat it over and over the same way as doubters claim their opinion. So going in circle continue. However it's more and more boring everyday. Can't wait for some Breaking News...
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
What did Korgnex exactly use as argument to conclude that those are MJ's vocals musicwise?
Among big names, Quincy Jones preferred not to express his opinion other than he couldn't tell. Isn't that already sad and alarming that such a professional who worked with Michael couldn't tell whether it's the king of pop singing or not despite that it was released on an official album?
I don't think that anyone is denying that the vibrato CAN be affected. What doubters emphasyze is that melodyne (despite the ability to modify the vibrato) DOES NOT affect it. That's why the doubters wonder why anyone would modify MJ's vibrato on purpose when it's not necessary to do so?
Why? Because we have an unprecedent case here. Long time MJ's fans around the world don't recognize MJ's voice and believers don't feel the need to understand why? If an average non-fan Joe in the street didn't recognize MJ's voice, who would care? But when an entire community of huge MJ fans don't recognize the vocals, it's another phenomenon that we are faced with, and I wouldn't undermine that fact, nor would I drag myself into a belief that only a couple of fans are hallucinating to hear an imposter.
The onus of proving is on those who claim without proof that it's MJ. So far we've been told that there are worktapes and proofs, but we haven't seen any of it.
Releasing something officially doesn't always guarantee it to be authentic. The official authenticity so far is as subjective as the doubters' opinions. Given this unprecedent situation those officials should release the proof, because so far those songs have been cancerous. We want to know whether those songs are begnin or malignant tumors.
p.s. Regarding the possibilty of MJ sounding off, two things:
First Eddie never claimed neither that he sounded off nor that he wasn't in shape. On the contrary, he said that MJ was workng hard every day and that he was ready to record those songs, and also that MJ wanted those songs to be released.
Second, if despite what Eddie said, MJ was off, then I guess it's a disgrace from Eddie to sell those tracks and above all to claim that MJ was ready and that he wanted to release them. But honestly, sounding off on all 12 tracks is 11 too many to believe in such a theory.
Last edited:
nope.
Assuming that he was off for some reason - either in regards to the songs or the autographs - do you really expect anyone to say it? Really?
Julien's was privately telling it a few people who ratted them out. Didn't you watch Frank Cascio sit silent when Oprah asked them about addiction? Didn't you see Kenny Ortega say Michael was in perfect health and ready for the concert when he actually sent a worrisome email and had problems with his attendance to rehearsals ?
Why? Because they were his friend and there was no need to trash to Michael publicly. For example his situation during TII was temporary - he had good days and bad days - but Kenny omitted the bad days until he was under the oath.
If even there's a remote truth to this story, do you really expect Michael Bush or Cascio's state it publicly?
why? it's not like Julien's theory is like a flu that you recover in a few days. He's claiming an effect from drugs - which will continue as long as you take the drug.
-------
Edited to add:
In an interview with the police Nanny Grace claimed that Michael was using drugs in 2007. Murray's lawyers tried to investigate that but Judge Pastor didn't allow them and he limited them to the last 6 months. Cascio's denied the drug claims but not when under oath. I think Lloyds or AEG has subpoenaed Frank. It might be interesting to see - if we can - how much his story will change under oath.
Julien's was privately telling it a few people who ratted them out. Didn't you watch Frank Cascio sit silent when Oprah asked them about addiction? Didn't you see Kenny Ortega say Michael was in perfect health and ready for the concert when he actually sent a worrisome email and had problems with his attendance to rehearsals ?
Why? Because they were his friend and there was no need to trash to Michael publicly. For example his situation during TII was temporary - he had good days and bad days - but Kenny omitted the bad days until he was under the oath.
If even there's a remote truth to this story, do you really expect Michael Bush or Cascio's state it publicly?
why? it's not like Julien's theory is like a flu that you recover in a few days. He's claiming an effect from drugs - which will continue as long as you take the drug.
-------
Edited to add:
In an interview with the police Nanny Grace claimed that Michael was using drugs in 2007. Murray's lawyers tried to investigate that but Judge Pastor didn't allow them and he limited them to the last 6 months. Cascio's denied the drug claims but not when under oath. I think Lloyds or AEG has subpoenaed Frank. It might be interesting to see - if we can - how much his story will change under oath.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Fair enough, but didn't you hear the huge difference between the Cascio vocals and This Is It vocals despite your theory of the common factor that MJ was not in shape?
p.s. Why would MJ record whole 12 songs not in shape in a matter of few weeks and not that many in a matter of years when he was in shape in his own studio?
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
Are we really supposed to believe that by some form of unidentified "processing" they somehow manage to create an artificial vibrato that sounds exactly the same as the natural vibrato of Jason Malachi? And it's also a coincidence that they contain the same pronounciation, the same snorts and every other vocal aspect that is all over Jason's songs yet at the same time contain not one sngle trace of Michael's own vocal habits? On top of that Michael wrote and recorded an entire album in 8 weeks, which goes compeletly against his usual standard of practice, but didn't leave any evidence of his involvement? Not one single piece of written info about the songs. That they don't have any out takes of Michael talking during the recording process while the microphone was on? That all they had to prove it was Michael was one hard drive which was broken?
The onus is on Eddie Cascio to prove the songs are real, otherwise I could hire a soundalike and record some vocals and then say that Michael recorded them while he stayed with me. It was the lack of quality control that allowed this to happen.
This whole thing of calling Michael out of shape is quite offensive to Michael. He was well enough to go out and about shopping, attend Broadway shows and do photoshoots and give interviews all during the time that he was with the Cascios. We have audio of him speaking at that time to Ebony magazine. He sounds fine. He was also fine when he attended Jesse Jacksons birthday party immediately after leaving the Cascios. So there really is no evidence to suggest he was unwell. And as we saw with TII, even when under the influence of medication, he was singing perfectly fine. He certainly didn't sound identical to Jason Cupeta as the Cascio tracks do.
The onus is on Eddie Cascio to prove the songs are real, otherwise I could hire a soundalike and record some vocals and then say that Michael recorded them while he stayed with me. It was the lack of quality control that allowed this to happen.
This whole thing of calling Michael out of shape is quite offensive to Michael. He was well enough to go out and about shopping, attend Broadway shows and do photoshoots and give interviews all during the time that he was with the Cascios. We have audio of him speaking at that time to Ebony magazine. He sounds fine. He was also fine when he attended Jesse Jacksons birthday party immediately after leaving the Cascios. So there really is no evidence to suggest he was unwell. And as we saw with TII, even when under the influence of medication, he was singing perfectly fine. He certainly didn't sound identical to Jason Cupeta as the Cascio tracks do.
not really. Of course if we are approaching him as a normal human being and not some sort of perfect god like being.
I'm gonna quote Shana Mantagal here
Shana Mangatal ?@ImShanaMangatal
@dallasjenfitz The only problem is that some fans see him as a God, and if a friend reveals a negative trait about him, they are crucified.
Chamife
Proud Member
No, it's not embarrassing. Michael would have never released the songs if he was off in some way. And if he didn't give his blessing on the songs, then why should I? Michael was critical and a perfectionist. Maybe he would have used other words to describe the songs or his singing ("they stink?"..
), but if he was critical about his work, I don't see why the fans can't. The ones who decided to release the songs should be embarrased. I agree it is some sort of a similar situation with the debate on the authenticity of the autographs. But to me personally it's not very interesting. Fake clothes, fake authographs, fake noses....I can't be bothered with a lot of these themes, because these don't really touch/influence the core of the artist Michael Jackson. It's not imporant in my eyes (I'm sure for a lot of fans it is, but we're all different). But his songs, his voice, his work is.
And if Michael in some way was not 'well' during recording, then again.....they shouldn't have released them. Then they also wouldn't have to explain why he sounds off to 'defend' him.
No, it's not embarrassing. Michael would have never released the songs if he was off in some way. And if he didn't give his blessing on the songs, then why should I? Michael was critical and a perfectionist. Maybe he would have used other words to describe the songs or his singing ("they stink?"..
I agree it is some sort of a similar situation with the debate on the authenticity of the autographs. But to me personally it's not very interesting. Fake clothes, fake authographs, fake noses....I can't be bothered with a lot of these themes, because these don't really touch/influence the core of the artist Michael Jackson. It's not imporant in my eyes (I'm sure for a lot of fans it is, but we're all different). But his songs, his voice, his work is.
And if Michael in some way was not 'well' during recording, then again.....they shouldn't have released them. Then they also wouldn't have to explain why he sounds off to 'defend' him.
Agreed...Michael was a perfectionist, asked TONS of questions, demanded the best out of himself and the people he worked with....For those fans who are keen to know these types of things about Michael's music, work, work habits in the studio/recording process, it's not unusual or embarrassing for fans to question when something doesn't seem right...ESPECIALLY when the songs sound the way they do with no accompanying information that he did indeed sing these songs...
That's fine if other fans just accept what they hear and move on....But for a lot of other fans, more transparency is needed....
If the songs turn out to be Michael, it doesn't change the fact that the vibrato sounds terrible...I wouldn't take that back if it turned out to be him....If these songs turn out to be him, I'd be VERY surprised because they sound extremely inferior...And it's not just one song, it's 12 songs...That's not consistent with MJ's calibre of work....I'm not saying he's a god and never made a mistake....But it's just not the way he worked based on numerous stories from producers he's worked with throughout his career...
Last edited:
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,737
- Points
- 63
There is nothing to suggest he was out of shape in that time. It's actually the contrary. He was out and about and quite active during his stay at the Cascio's. The irony of course is that we have vocals recorded there for Thriller 25 where he sounds absolutely fine. Even if he was out of shape, feeling unwell, under the influence etc, I don't believe it would make him sound like a totally different person with a different voice and singing style.
It's not viewing him as a god. It's just accepting that there is no evidence or reason to think he would sound like the voice on the songs if he was unwell.
Aniram
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,191
- Points
- 48
I guess I'm the only one that heard the recording that Murray did when Michael was under the influence and sounded totally different.
Can we at least be realistic? I'm assuming that everyone at least had a cold / flu and sounded hoarse and different in their life. It's quite unrealistic to say that "feeling unwell, under the influence etc" wouldn't make a person sound different. It does.
Can we at least be realistic? I'm assuming that everyone at least had a cold / flu and sounded hoarse and different in their life. It's quite unrealistic to say that "feeling unwell, under the influence etc" wouldn't make a person sound different. It does.