Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Superstition said:
I've never agreed with those who say they "hear bits of MJ" in the songs. I never believed the "hee-hee"s on Breaking News were from In The Closet.
Click to expand...

I've never believed that either...Those hee-hees sound just as bad as the vibrato. Though I listened so intently when it was first released...Pretty much forcing myself to hear him...Even just a word or two...I mean, I really tried. Then I realized that the sheer fact that I had to try so hard just to recognize his voice was a huge red flag in itself.
 
I just think what we are hearing, are demo's made by the Cascio's, using Malachi as an impersonator. Either MJ didn't like them, or never heard them, or they were made after his death. I *still* can't believe that they registered those songs within THREE DAYS OF MICHAEL'S DEATH. That's insane and just reeks of opportunism.
 
MJelboo said:
I just think what we are hearing, are demo's made by the Cascio's, using Malachi as an impersonator. Either MJ didn't like them, or never heard them, or they were made after his death. I *still* can't believe that they registered those songs within THREE DAYS OF MICHAEL'S DEATH. That's insane and just reeks of opportunism.
Click to expand...

I know, right? 3 days after the Michael Jackson dies, they registers the songs. Shouldn't they be thinking about other things? Even I as a fan was crushed weeks after his death.
 
MJelboo said:
I just think what we are hearing, are demo's made by the Cascio's, using Malachi as an impersonator. Either MJ didn't like them, or never heard them, or they were made after his death. I *still* can't believe that they registered those songs within THREE DAYS OF MICHAEL'S DEATH. That's insane and just reeks of opportunism.
Click to expand...

What they registered on June 27th 2009 were the Porte demos for four songs - the same ones that Angelo Montrone had been working on just a few weeks before. Malachi had nothing to do with it at that stage. He laid down his vocals in late Feb/early March 2010 and then those songs were registered as Ason (Anglelikson) compilations a few weeks later. It is those versions that were sold to Sony/Estate.

Malachi was not involved prior to Michael's death. Some of these songs were not even written before Michael died. Michael did not record any vocals for any of the twelve Cascio songs at any time.
 
I thought the hee's hee's on BN were from ITC. I blamed the vibrato on them to the auto tune effect Teddy said they used. I don't believe that anymore though.
 
MJelboo said:
I just think what we are hearing, are demo's made by the Cascio's, using Malachi as an impersonator. Either MJ didn't like them, or never heard them, or they were made after his death. I *still* can't believe that they registered those songs within THREE DAYS OF MICHAEL'S DEATH. That's insane and just reeks of opportunism.
Click to expand...
"It is with a heavy heart, that I have to register these songs".....
 
StellaJackson said:
What they registered on June 27th 2009 were the Porte demos for four songs - the same ones that Angelo Montrone had been working on just a few weeks before. Malachi had nothing to do with it at that stage. He laid down his vocals in late Feb/early March 2010 and then those songs were registered as Ason (Anglelikson) compilations a few weeks later. It is those versions that were sold to Sony/Estate.

Malachi was not involved prior to Michael's death. Some of these songs were not even written before Michael died. Michael did not record any vocals for any of the twelve Cascio songs at any time.
Click to expand...


Could you for once back up any of your outrageouss claims? How long will you continue to pretend to have evidence for what you have been saying heaps of times?

2013?
2014?
2015?
2016?
2017?
2018?
2019?
2020?

Do you realize that any and all of your claims cannot be taken seriously if you go on like that for years?
 
^ Dude, give it up. We have plenty of evidence to back up our claims. What do you have?
 
Sir, I think with the "plenty of evidence" you are referring to the infamous vocal comparisons all over the web. I'm not talking about those - and you know very well, they do not qualify as evidence in a court of law.

It would be nice to
a) ignore for once that people have different opinions
and
b) don't always diss the counterside on this controversial matter

Instead I want someone to answer a legit question that you could ask yourself:

If Stella or whoever claims to KNOW that Jason Malachi allegedly "laid down his vocals in late Feb/early March 2010" and that "ome of these songs were not even written before Michael died" then I'm asking for evidence backing up exactly those claims.

And FYI: If it's simply based on Twitter, blog entries and other internet stuff, then it is not evidence.


So, now I'm asking again everyone. Do you have evidence to back up THOSE ABOVE CLAIMS?
Do you realize that if it's just info from the internet, then it's not evidence, do you?



In case you don't know: In a few months the timeframe for a consumer fraud case (which is all WE - the fans - can do on this very matter) will be closing and I'm frankly interested to bring this annoying matter to an end by all available means.

I will show you an example of how easy it would have been to have filed a consumer fraud case in time - which I'm surprised no fans from the USA have done. It is still possible but the timeframe will be closing in a few months.


And just to be absolutely clear - we as a Michael Jackson COMMUNITY/FANDOM have a COMMON ISSUE on this very matter:
1) One side can't stop the talk about a fraud
2) The other side can't expose a fraud

OK. So there's really no need to belittle each other. I think after almost three years we should try to solve this together. We are the only ones to do this and only a due lawsuit can help us to all find piece.

Let me explain:
Why is this timeframe so important?
It is all WE will EVER be able to do. And the timeframe will be closing SOON!
Let's say we would have evidence about a fraud at a later time. We would NOT be able to do anything as you cannot sue someone for a crime that you're not affected by. We as fans are only protected - and thus affected - by consumer rights on this matter, that's why various countries allow you to file consumer fraud cases - within a limited timeframe. I'll soon show you a recent major case which is also a class action lawsuit (which means that it allows every consumer to join in who declares that he was affected by the crime, in our case: buying individual songs or the CD "Michael" with good faith that all 10 songs are performed by the artist Michael Jackson and not an impersonator).

And again: I want closure on this matter. I do not care who's right. I wish to have never heard the word "Cascio". I would be totally fine with being proven wrong. I just don't want this "cold war" between us to go on and on.
 
Last edited:
Korgnex, u r mixing up evidence vs proof. Anyway, what other proof do you need than the voice itself when you hear it? Or, why not turn your argument against those who produced the songs rather than against the fans. The onus is on those who claim and sell those songs as MJ's. So what is the proof that it is MJ? The label that sells it as MJ?
 
Bumper, with all due respect, I am not mixing up evidence vs proof. Comparison clips are anything but proof. What we hear is subjective and not important, there is no common ground on what individual persons hear. And my argument is against those that produced them. And of course my argument is also against those who vehemently claim to have evidence to expose them.

No, Bumper, the onus is on us to claim that what they did was a fraud. To contest a lie, you have to expose it. Those who produced those did claim it was MJ. It is our turn to contest this. They acted, we can only react.

And in this respect: They are officially labelled as MJ recordings. The onus is on us to contest this.
 
Korgnex said:
Bumper, with all due respect, I am not mixing up evidence vs proof. Comparison clips are anything but proof. What we hear is subjective and not important, there is no common ground on what individual persons hear. And my argument is against those that produced them. And of course my argument is also against those who vehemently claim to have evidence to expose them.

No, Bumper, the onus is on us to claim that what they did was a fraud. To contest a lie, you have to expose it. Those who produced those did claim it was MJ. It is our turn to contest this. They acted, we can only react.

And in this respect: They are officially labelled as MJ recordings. The onus is on us to contest this.
Click to expand...


I don't agree Korgnex. MJ is dead, and people have been involved in MJ's project releasing copy-pasted material. The amount of copy-pastes and the amount of copied melodies from previous albums is so high, that it has become ridiculous to even claim that MJ had to do anything with the process of creation of those songs. All they have is the power to give green light to put to sale anything they aprove of. But it doesn't mean that because they have that power and monopoly over the releases that the onus is on us. It is they who claim to sell MJ's songs, so it is up to them to show us proofs and not just "Michael Jackson" name on the CD booklet.

In short, they claim it's MJ, but they don't provide any proof. They just abused of their labelling power to sell anything they wanted.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
In short, they claim it's MJ, but they don't provide any proof. They just abused of their labelling power to sell anything they wanted.
Click to expand...

You have witnessed that they are not legally required to show to us what they have. That's why the onus is on us. They have no legal obligations to show us anything.

About copy-pastes and copied melodies: I disagree, there are other explanations and the only issue in a court of law would be the authenticity of the vocals (and for some whether Jason Malachi recorded the songs).
 
Korgnex, I see that your attitude about these songs is changing. That's good, because I never understood why you decided to defend the authenticity of these clearly fake songs, all the more so as you probably have heard them all before most of us. The songs are fake, and I think that everyone who heard them and knows Michael's music inside out should be aware of this by now.


Now I am not going to mention all the reasons why we consider them to be fake because they were mentioned in this thread countless times but I think the audio comparison if done by a professionalist could serve as the strongest evidence that confirms our allegations, even in court.


I agree that probably the best place to look for justice would be the court, but it would require courage and some serious action to which apparently no one has bothered. I have always believed that our goal which is to reveal the truth about this fraud could be achieved through the media. It is no secret that they have tremendous power. It amazed me how the information about fake songs on the "Michael" album spread through the internet only because TMZ has published a short article about the alleged recording of Paris, while we can discuss the controversy in great detail here for years and no one cares. What we could do is to gather all the information and evidence we have and write a detailed letter and send it to as many journalists and media outlets around the world. Thats what we could do without involving in a legal battle.
 
Korgnex, I see that your attitude about these songs is changing. That's good,
Click to expand...
You have some good ideas but the above was never stated by Korgnex. He never stated he changed his mind about the authenticity. Just stated that we could work together to legally challenge the authenticity of the vocals so we can have this settled once and for all. Anyway thats what I understood.
 
Yes I know he's still a believer ( which I can't understand in the first place) but not as headstrong as he used to be. Thats my impression.
 
What I can't understand is how believers don't see that we doubters have no power against the giant money-harvester companies. Now, of course that cases like Erin Brokovitch existed, but we aren't talking about people's life threats in this Cascio scenario.

They are getting away with it and they know it, and we know it too.
 
I disagree. I'll soon show you a recent major case that will head for trial around August this year (there's a 90-day timeframe in which the defendants could try to settle it out-of-court but the plaintiffs' lawyers won't do so). It is also a consumer fraud case/class action lawsuit and it's also just about the little poor customers who only spent a few dollars each on a product.
I have helped on this case and I have a feeling these lawyers would be interested to pick this issue up since the pure existence of such a case would make major headlines. I have not yet prepared a summary which is the key regarding the very matter, especially since it has to focus on the merit of this case which is to disclose Sony/Estate's forensic tests (and for the doubters: debunk them) plus the origin of the songs (James Porte, Frank Cascio) that has never been talked about in any official capacity.
 
The Cascios, the producers and the estate are definitely to blame for that album. That's why they're hesitating with the next project, I think. They're worried it "won't sell". It's obvious what they were doing with the "Michael" album.
 
Korgnex is right. You can fume all you want and claim that the estate and Sony owe you proof, but the reality is that they will never bring up the Cascio songs again. It's a done deal, and although I'm sure they've learned from their mistakes, the album Michael is still selling to a wide market, so there is no reason for them to bring up the issue and harm their own sales. The only way for fans to know what really happened and get closure would be to bring up a lawsuit before it's too late. So if you really care about Michael's legacy and have real evidence, it's time to produce it.

I personally don't have evidence, but I knew a person who was in touch with Michael in 2008/09 and claimed to know some of the Cascio songs. Korgnex, if you are serious about the lawsuit, I can try to contact her again.
 
Last edited:
Bringing up a case against whom exactly? LOL

SONY - purchased legally
Estate - claim the voice is authentic, but has nothing to do with the recordings
Eddie Cascio has no witnesses and sold the sound files legally
All the demos, computer files, and so on were reportedly destroyed,...

Lol one more time about brining up a case against THAT!
 
If my understanding of the US legal system is right, it can be brought up against all of them, and based on the plaintiff's argument the judge will decide if the lawsuit has merit and which of the defendants will be dismissed.
 
morinen said:
If my understanding of the US legal system is right, it can be brought up against all of them, and based on the plaintiff's argument the judge will decide if the lawsuit has merit and which of the defendants will be dismissed.
Click to expand...


That's not the point. The point is what I mentioned above: legal transaction by SONY + authenticity claimed by Estate + no witnesses in Eddy's basement. They made sure to cover their backs and that's it.
 
^ Yes, it would be filed against a) Sony (distributor), b) Estate (MJ copyright owner) and c) Angelikson (production)

If party c) destroyed all evidence, then jurors could declare them guilty
Both Sony and Estate have forensic tests which the judge will order to be disclosed
Depending on when these tests were done and whether they handled the songs with adequate care before, they could be found guilty as well for negligent acts
- eg the Estate since they had to verify and approve the US Copyright Office registrations regarding Michael's participation as a) songwriter and b) performer
- eg Sony for supervising mixes which were exchanged on their internal file sharing server as for any other artist


Michael sold >2.5 million, NOT 5


Bumper, you're making it look like it was the "perfect crime". Have you given up? The forensic tests by Estate and Sony can be contested and Eddie allegedly destroying everything is not a good sign since Frank Cascio still had James Porte's demos. And if Frank destroyed them in the meantime for no reason, you can imagine how jurors will think about this.
 
Korgnex said:
^ Yes, it would be filed against a) Sony (distributor), b) Estate (MJ copyright owner) and c) Angelikson (production)

If party c) destroyed all evidence, then jurors could declare them guilty
Both Sony and Estate have forensic tests which the judge will order to be disclosed
Depending on when these tests were done and whether they handled the songs with adequate care before, they could be found guilty as well for negligent acts
- eg the Estate since they had to verify and approve the US Copyright Office registrations regarding Michael's participation as a) songwriter and b) performer
- eg Sony for supervising mixes which were exchanged on their iternal file sharing server as for any other artist


Michael sold >2.5 million, NOT 5
Click to expand...

No matter against whom it would be filed, but it would be extremely weak. How can you prove that something has been destroyed when you don't know what exactly was destroyed or whether it is true that it had existed at all?

Legally SONY has nothing to fear. They bought and distributed the "authentic" tracks and that's it. Estate finds them legal and authentic. Eddie says "it is Michael". End of discussion. Unless you have hard evidence it would be foolish and stupid to file anything against anyone given the fact that everything was done strictly legally. This is a dead-end case and a dead-end discussion. I don't even know why do we always bring up this "sue them" argument. It's useless.
 
This case would be mainly about disclosing the forensic tests first. And that's not useless since you guys always claim they a) would not exist and b) can be contested.

Lemme just work this one out.
 
Korgnex said:
This case would be mainly about disclosing the forensic tests first. And that's not useless since you guys always claim they a) would not exist and b) can be contested.

Lemme just work this one out.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous Korgnex. The Estate is supposed to be on MJ's side, just like all the fans are supposed to be. And before even talking about any lawsuit and suing (which seems to be a common sport in some countries), the Estate should have played the transparency from the very begining and that is to hold back the realease of the songs as the fans had requested until they can show us proof. Instead they gave green light without taking into account what we had predicted (the rift) and above all they have shown zero transparency, zero proof. How do you expect fans to trust them when they clearly are mute even about the names of those supposed forensics. And showing the forensic's reports wouldn't have done any harm to anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top