Michael - The Great Album Debate

azsummergirl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
583
Points
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ, US
I disagree. To me the upbeat songs sound the least like him. I stated this before. Some people are more sensitive to slower songs, some people are more sensitive to faster songs. As far as I am concerned I am more sensitive to faster songs and I immediately frowned when I heard Monster.

i have to agree. that could be because Bad is my favorite track. i tend to like mj's fast songs better, soi'm more sensitive to those as well.
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
I agree that leaking songs is wrong. I agree that stealing them is wrong.

But, why don't we face some facts here and see what caused those tracks to be stolen and to be leaked:

-Lack of info regading those tracks despite huge controversy
-Too many copy pastes and similarities with previous songs
-Too much similarity with Jason's voice
-No details regarding forensic's analyses
-Fear of being cheated by SONY/Cascios/Estate
-Fear of being robbed by SONY/Cascio/Estate
-Fear of being deceived by SONY/Cascio/Estate
-Frustration of jeopadizing MJ's legacy with those Cascio songs


In no way I am encouraging or defending the stealing or leaking, however I completely understand why it happened. It has been driving MJ's fans crazy not to have any additional info over them. The stealing and leaking was a desperate attempt to try to understand what happened. This never happened on such a scale with genuine tracks.

When people feel they're deceived or cheated, they don't find it wrong to do the same thing to the wrong doers.
 
Last edited:

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
The following video is quite short, so please watch it, because it perfectly illustrates the situation in this thread. There is no middle ground, one of the camp is right, the other is wrong. Shaq fell into a trap, it's hilarious :lmao:

[youtube]hf1D40jLdyo&feature=related[/youtube]



:rofl: "Let's agree to degree" :lmao:
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
Kreen, do you even know that they used WORDS from previous songs in these ones, literally to bookend phrases? The entire ad-libs of Monster in its final chorus are basically ad-libs and words from other songs.

Yes, it's absolutely true that the Cascio tracks are full of words, lines and ad-libs lifted straight from earlier MJ tracks. But there was never any mystery about this. Those songs were incomplete guide vocals that were never meant to be released. Had MJ lived, a few of those might have been dusted off, and rerecorded in a professional setting. But as it is, they were artificially "completed".

Ironically, the fact that they used MJ samples tends to contradict the whole premise of the "pro-fake" theory. Because if they had an impostor, they could have just gotten him to sing the complete songs, ad-libs and all. Of course, some might say that they purposedly used real ad-libs to create the illusion of MJ singing, but that stretches the bounds of credibility : either they had a guy would could fool people into thinking he's MJ, or not. If the guy was a "believable" MJ, they didn't need to add "real" ad-libs; in fact, adding them would only risk bringing attention to an eventual difference between the two voices. And if their impersonator was not believable, then no amount of ad-libs could fool anybody.

Another point : not all Cascio songs even use added ad-libs. Unless I'm mistaken, "All I Need" features none. The Cascios had no way of knowing which of their 12 songs would eventually make the cut. So it means that they expected a song like All I Need to be just as convincing as the others, despite having 2007-only vocals on it. If they had come up with the idea to hide their "fake" singer under layers of "real" MJ, they would have done so for all of their tracks.
 

Aniram

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,191
Points
48
No, you're missing the point. Had Malachi completed the full lines, it'd sound more like Malachi. Since they use copy and pasted words it makes Michael Jackson in the song more. It's a "pro-fake" theory indeed.
 

KingMikeJ

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
2,721
Points
0
No, you're missing the point. Had Malachi completed the full lines, it'd sound more like Malachi. Since they use copy and pasted words it makes Michael Jackson in the song more. It's a "pro-fake" theory indeed.

Why risk it by using an impersonator if they can copy and paste words from previous songs?
 

Aniram

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,191
Points
48
Because then it'd be a collection of songs that sound like "Take Me Away" by Nathan Jay.
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
I'll only reply to the few points where I have something to add. I don't know how to use the "quote" function, so please excuse me if my answers only show up as part of the original text.

It is claimed by Eddie in the making of the album video, and he is credited as co-writer on all 12 songs as per the copyright registrations and album credits.

That's true, but MJ is also credited on almost all of the songs on Invincible, when we know he didn't write them. It,s become, sadly, common industry practice for writers and producers to include the star's name in the credits, sometimes just because they changed a word here and there.


So now we are using Friedman to support arguments? Oh dear. He only claimed that he heard them, and never mentioned it in his original 2007 article. It was 2010 when he first claimed to have heard them. He is the same "journalist" who revealed the existence of the songs and went to great lengths to prove their authenticity, which should speak for itself. No other journalist has ever claimed to have heard them. It should also be noted that he only claimed to have heard the Porte versions. He makes no claim of having heard the MJ versions prior to 2010.

I know Roger Friedman falls in the "villain" category for some fans (including for reporting on MJ's financial and health problems, which fans didn't want to believe, but that turned out to be all too real in the end). Friedman is a legitimate. published journalist, who has worked for legitimate, professional media organisations. He has a career, and a name. He has real access to the people involved in the very affair. In all of those ways, he's a better source than anyone who has none of those things. And as to why he would have any reason to help the Cascios pull off their hoax, I have no idea...


Michael managed to record multiple takes for 12 complete songs but failed to do any adlibs on any of them?

How do we know he recorded "multiple takes for 12 complete songs"? In fact, it looks like this is far from true. "Soldier Boy" was very clearly constructed from a very incomplete vocals : it's missing parts that one would expect in a complete songs. Same for All I Need; doesn't that one even repeat a whole verse? Burn Tonight seems to come from very incomplete material also, with Porte being featured prominently on the chorus. Chances are some songs were more complete than others.


Eddie and Frank Cascio, their close family, James Porte and Cupeta. That's it. Why wouldn't they keep quiet when there is money involved?

You forget to add Porte and Malachi's close families/wives/girlfriends. And also everybody's friends, who might be surprised to learn that, say, their good friend James Porte was in New Jersey recording with MJ when they remember spending that whole summer with him drinking beer in their basement. Oh, and also Friedman, apparently, and HIS family. So basically, dozens of people -- most of whom are unrelated and basically strangers to one another-- would have to hold their tongues.

"
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,736
Points
63
The songs sound nothing like how we've ever heard Michael, yet they sound identical to Jason. There is far more supporting evidence in the comparisons etc that suggest it is Jason. Until someone provides some proof that it is Michael, or a coherent and believable explanation as to why Michaal suddenly developed all Jason's vocal nuances for 12 mysterious songs whose existence was not known until almost a yer after Michael's death, then I will never believe that Michael had anything to do with these insulting, offensive and sickening songs. It is almost a year now since Breaking News streamed and not one believer has provided any comparison to Michael, despite the wealth of comparisons that match Jason. I'm not interested in debating this anymore. If you can't tell the difference between Michael and an impersonator then I can't help you.
 

Grent

Guest
@kreen:

Friedman said, the Cascio Tracks were among the best (!) and most completed (!) songs.
Either he has no clue or he was misleading.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,918
Points
113
If these songs are so authentic as everyone says, then why are there no MJ comparisons? Oh yeah, they can't make them.
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
Kreen,

The huge point that you are missing: those songs do not sound Michael Jackson. I can imagine thousands of excuses for two or three songs to sound a little off than usual and I could possibly accept those excuses. But, I can't imagine a single valid excuse for 12 songs that sound completely off. No theory can support that. The Cascio ultimately alongside with the Estate (Branca) betrayed MJ. I am glad fans voiced their anger not to include the soongs in the Cirque du Soleil show.
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
Yesterday Branca confirmed on CNN interview that Michael terminated their business collaboration amicably in 2006. Branca should not deal with any MJ's business any more. The only reason why Branca is dealing with MJ's business is because he got lucky -- MJ's will dates from 2002 and wasn't duly renewed.
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
You sound like Taaj Malik.

No, I sound like a logical person.

Now, let's leave Taj out of this and think logically.

Imagine you collaborate with someone for decades and at one point in your life you see that the business isn't any more as it used to be. So you obviously could stay friends with the person you collaborated with. However you wish to stop doing any further business with that person. So obviously you terminate the contract amicably, nothing wrong with that. However, in the meantime you didn't think to change your old will because you didn't expect to die so soon.

Here is the outcome: even though you terminated the contract with the person while you were alive, the termination doesn't apply to the will, so automatically your business friend will benefit from the last legal document there is. In this case the last legal document Michael duly signed was from 2002, in other words involving people prior to the termination of their contract in 2006.

Now, you explain to me in all that logic, why would you terminate the contract with someone you've been working with for decades while you are alive and not change your will at the same time in case you die?

As far as I am concerned, and as I see the things now, especially after following the Dr. Murray case, I deduce that Michael certainly did not expect to die so soon and that he would have most probably modify his will in accordance with post 2006 business period of time. But he simply did not have time or maybe he did not think about it as he was probably busy with more important things as for 2006.

In all logic no one that I know, myself included, would ever terminate a contract with a person while alive without doing the same to the will. Would you?
 
Last edited:
Top