Michael - The Great Album Debate

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,736
Points
63
And still no explanation as to why the songs sound identical to Jason and still no comparison to anything of Michael's. Come on believers, you must be able to provide something to counter the hours of comparisons compiled by TPI.
 

coolcat75

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
130
Points
0
And still no explanation as to why the songs sound identical to Jason and still no comparison to anything of Michael's. Come on believers, you must be able to provide something to counter the hours of comparisons compiled by TPI.

But even if Eddie admits everything, It won't really matter.
He's messing with Michael's legacy.
But no matter how many people apoligize, it won't bring Michael back.
It is likely this discussion will go on for years, and nothing will change. We as MJ fans have been torn apart, arguing, angry at each other, and even split into groups.
We are MJ fans, we need to stay strong.
We are letting 12 songs destroy the trust and friendship fans have in each other. We should not let 12 songs cause this much damage.
 

Lucilla

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
3,363
Points
0
Location
Neverland since 1991
:girl_hysteric:

But even if Eddie admits everything, It won't really matter.
He's messing with Michael's legacy.
But no matter how many people apoligize, it won't bring Michael back.
It is likely this discussion will go on for years, and nothing will change. We as MJ fans have been torn apart, arguing, angry at each other, and even split into groups.
We are MJ fans, we need to stay strong.
We are letting 12 songs destroy the trust and friendship fans have in each other. We should not let 12 songs cause this much damage.
The damage is already done, but I can see a bigger damage if those tracks are released in the future.
 

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
Yes, the damage is done. I become very weary. I will never be as excited about a new album as I was before. These tracks change my attitude and change my view on the Estate. What they did is not something that I can sweep under the rug. Whenever I hear a "new" Michael Jackson song, I need to question whether the song is genuine or not. Once the trust is violated, it's close to impossible to re-build it.
 

azsummergirl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
583
Points
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ, US
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:

so excellent. seriously. also, shaq is so large that he's covering up the chair--it looks like he's sitting on air/nothingness
 

Arklove

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
18,071
Points
83
Location
Canada
^^ :lmao: I finally watched that...there was no sound earlier....I love how he pats him on the leg at 0:47...and it's true, it looks like he's sitting on nothing loool
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
No, I sound like a logical person.

here's a better logic.

If he didn't want Branca to be his executor he had 7 (from 2002) to 3 (from 2006) years to replace him. Why didn't he?

Sorry but "too busy" for 3-7 years doesn't cut it IMO/


However, in the meantime you didn't think to change your old will because you didn't expect to die so soon.

3 to 7 years isn't that short of a time to update a will. Especially replacing an executor could be with just a few lines of amendment to the already existing will. It's not that hard to write "I replace Branca with ..." and sign it.

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?

probably because he didn't want to replace Branca. If you listen to Branca's interviews he claims that he left in 2006 - not fired / not requested by Michael. Branca says that he felt that there was a lot of people around Michael and in Michael's ear that he decided to leave.

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.

Raymone Bain says that she asked MJ twice - after Branca left - about a will and if he had a will and if he needed a will, if he needed to update his will. MJ said he had.

So even when he was asked and reminded of his will , he had no intention of updating it. and again replacing an executor would be an easy thing to do.

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?

again by branca's statements he's the one that terminated the contract, it wasn't Michael. So how about it from that logic that you had didn't want to terminate the contract to begin with hence had no reason to terminate the will?

and even if we agreed that he didn't want Branca (and McClain) who did he want in charge? Bank of America?
 

azsummergirl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
583
Points
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ, US
wait, someone explained why shaq has no chair? where is this alleged post? i'm now honestly curious . . . forget the cascio tracks for a sec, i want to know more about this magical chair and/or shaq's magical a$$ :p
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
here's a better logic.

If he didn't want Branca to be his executor he had 7 (from 2002) to 3 (from 2006) years to replace him. Why didn't he?

Sorry but "too busy" for 3-7 years doesn't cut it IMO/




3 to 7 years isn't that short of a time to update a will. Especially replacing an executor could be with just a few lines of amendment to the already existing will. It's not that hard to write "I replace Branca with ..." and sign it.



probably because he didn't want to replace Branca. If you listen to Branca's interviews he claims that he left in 2006 - not fired / not requested by Michael. Branca says that he felt that there was a lot of people around Michael and in Michael's ear that he decided to leave.



Raymone Bain says that she asked MJ twice - after Branca left - about a will and if he had a will and if he needed a will, if he needed to update his will. MJ said he had.

So even when he was asked and reminded of his will , he had no intention of updating it. and again replacing an executor would be an easy thing to do.



again by branca's statements he's the one that terminated the contract, it wasn't Michael. So how about it from that logic that you had didn't want to terminate the contract to begin with hence had no reason to terminate the will?

and even if we agreed that he didn't want Branca (and McClain) who did he want in charge? Bank of America?

Better logic? Branca said Michael had several business advisors and he had not expected to be the executor of MJ's will, so how can it be better logic when even Branca hadn't expected this? I don't know what businessman would put an executor of will after terminating a contract while alive. And if Branca terminated the contract it even makes it worse actually. That's not better logic, that's twisting around the common sense.


No Michael obviously did not think of changing his will every here and then. What he did just after Invincible doesn't mean he would have done the same after This Is It tour. The trial took Michael's all time and energy. Maybe he did have other ideas for the will but just didn't make it official. It happens all the time with people who die too soon. Your "better" logic for the sake of contradiction doesn't make it better, it just makes it different logic, but honestly hard to believe.


p.s. He had maximum 3 years from 2006 to 2009. Talking about 7 years since 2002 is irrelevant because in 2006 he still was doing business with Branca.

p.p.s. The reason why Branca was surprised to be the executor is because he knew they did not business together any more, so yes that's common sense. I don't know how your logic is better than even Branca's.
The only logic that ruled in favor of Branca was the fact that the legal will dated back from 2002. We have no idea if Michael actually wanted Branca to be his executor after 2006. Maybe Michael did have other will(s), but were purely not officialized.
 
Last edited:

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Maybe Michael did have other will(s), but were purely not officialized.

what do you mean by not officialized?

Even copies of the wills and even wills being worked on but not signed have been accepted by the courts. No one went to the court with a knowledge of another will and it's legally required to report that. there's nothing that shows that there was another will.

and again 1 line document saying "I replace Branca with.. " with a signature and 3 witnesses could be done in less than 5 minutes (to change the executors he didn't even need a new will, all he needed to do was an amendment). even though he had 3 years and twice asked by Raymone Bain, he didn't do it.

and still no one can answer "if not branca then who? " question.
 

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guest
what do you mean by not officialized?

Even copies of the wills and even wills being worked on but not signed have been accepted by the courts. No one went to the court with a knowledge of another will and it's legally required to report that. there's nothing that shows that there was another will.

and again 1 line document saying "I replace Branca with.. " with a signature and 3 witnesses could be done in less than 5 minutes (to change the executors he didn't even need a new will, all he needed to do was an amendment). even though he had 3 years and twice asked by Raymone Bain, he didn't do it.

and still no one can answer "if not branca then who? " question.

So I imagine when Branca was asked: "Had you expected to be the executor of MJ's will?" he should have answered something like: "I had not. However a MJ fan named Ivy anticipated it and finds it completely logical that I am the executor of the will today."

I mean, if Branca did not expect it, how can you expect it? As I said the contract was clearly terminated and it is not a common thing to appoint a former business advisor as the executor of the will, but in all logic the ones who continue developping business.

Michael had the time to do his amendments, true, but he thought he had more time. Nobody expected that Michael would die so soon. If he had lived longer he would have had zillion opportunities to change it. It was simply too late.
 

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
^^I don't know Mr. Branca enough to comment on it. All I know is that he's a brilliant entertainment lawyer who had helped Michael. He has years of expereince in the music industry negotiating deals. His expertise is one-of-a-kind. I actually think he's not a bad executor at all (sorry Bumpy!). That being said, he's not an artist. He doesn't have the visions and intuitions that a phenomenal artitst has. There are hits and misses in the products he and Mr. McClain authorized. I may sound very ungrateful here. I don't see him as the saviour or the white knight.

Ideally, I wish there is a visionary who puts artistic value over profitability to run the Estate. No, I don't live in a ivory tower. I know the importance of generating cash inflows. But, I also believe money will come along when the product is done in good taste, in a way that touches people's hearts.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
As far as executors goes business relationships does not matter. it doesn't matter if branca worked for him or not, it didn't matter if he was currently working or not. It's all about "who is able" to do that job. Michael could have listed Donald Trump as his executor just because he believed him to be a good businessman.

Branca's statement just shows that he didn't know if Michael updated his will or not. Because there had been 7 years until the last will. It turns out he didn't update it. End of story.

and just as love is magical said if you look to MJ's plan it's obvious that Branca was put as an executor for his ability to do business deals. He's the guy that managed to fund and release Thriller, get MJ Beatles catalog and got him the deal with highest royalty rates. Even after MJ's death he's the guy that made the biggest record deal as well as TII and Cirque deals. Branca is a deal maker and he's good in that regard. and there's nothing illogical to think that Michael would left the top entertainment lawyer for last 10 years as an executor of his estate to make the biggest deals. and I'm asking it again. If not Branca then who? Who do you think would be a better fit?

Also when you look to his will (Look to his plan. Branca to make the deals, McClain to deliver artistically and Spiegel to manage the money. ) you will see that actually McClain who happens to be his friend from childhood, instrumental in Janet's success and had extensive success for 2 record companies is left in charge of the artistic part of Michael's legacy.

so this blame on Branca when there's another person involved is skewed in my opinion. That album wouldn't and couldn't get released if McClain didn't approve to it.
 

love is magical

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
4,704
Points
0
Location
New Jersey, US
Ivy brought up a good point. That album also got the approval from John McClain. He may have disagreed with the tracklisting. But, at the end of day, he okayed it. I never believe the idea that Branca is the bad guy and McClain is the good guy. They collectively made a bad judgement regarding the album Michael.
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
And still no explanation as to why the songs sound identical to Jason and still no comparison to anything of Michael's. Come on believers, you must be able to provide something to counter the hours of comparisons compiled by TPI.

Much is always made by the anti-Cascio people of the fact that they have come up with comparisons that they say prove the Cascio singer sounds like Malachi, while their detractors can't do the same.

I could make an easy joke here and say that all that it proves is that the anti-Cascio people have a lot more time to waste on their hands...

I have neither the time nor the technical know-how to create such comparisons, but even if I did, I wouldn't waste my time on them. Here's why they are futile :

Either I'd be comparing a man's voice with his own voice (the "no-impostor" theory)

Or I'd be comparing a man's voice with that of an eerily similar-sounding impersonator.

In both cases, the differences will be so subtle, so nuanced, so small, and the variables so numerous (different eras, different moods, different recording systems), that it will all be completely subjective.

If you didn't know any better, and if you were looking for an impostor, would you not say that "Someone Put your hand out", "Money", "Beautiful Girl" and "2000 Watts" are sung by at least a few different people?

You might say that's a lot of words to cover the fact I won't produce those comparisons you ask for. Well, here's what I submit : I submit that KYHU sounds just like any number of other MJ ballads. That is my comparison : KYHU to most MJ ballads. I think that had that song been streamed first, there would be no controversy now.
 

kreen

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,014
Points
63
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.

But those 12 songs DO sound like MJ. Well actually, we haven't heard them all in full, but what I've heard sounds like MJ -- with background vocals often brought to the fore, to cover up for incomplete, imperfect vocals. Of course, the voice on the songs also resembles that of MJ impersonator Malachi, but that says more about his uncanny vocal resemblance than about the possibility an implausible, far-fetched hoax.
 

Grent

Guest
kreen said:
I think that had that song [KYHU] been streamed first, there would be no controversy now.

If you really believe that you don't get the controversy at all.
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,736
Points
63
But those 12 songs DO sound like MJ. Well actually, we haven't heard them all in full, but what I've heard sounds like MJ -- with background vocals often brought to the fore, to cover up for incomplete, imperfect vocals. Of course, the voice on the songs also resembles that of MJ impersonator Malachi, but that says more about his uncanny vocal resemblance than about the possibility an implausible, far-fetched hoax.

Obviously they have to sound LIKE MJ, or else they never would have been able to pass them off in the first place. But they sound an awful lot more, nay, identical to Jason Cupeta, who, of course, is an MJ soundalike. Since when did Michael develop the exact same vibrato, accent and pronounciation as Jason?
 

StellaJackson

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
2,736
Points
63
Much is always made by the anti-Cascio people of the fact that they have come up with comparisons that they say prove the Cascio singer sounds like Malachi, while their detractors can't do the same.

I could make an easy joke here and say that all that it proves is that the anti-Cascio people have a lot more time to waste on their hands...

I have neither the time nor the technical know-how to create such comparisons, but even if I did, I wouldn't waste my time on them. Here's why they are futile :

Either I'd be comparing a man's voice with his own voice (the "no-impostor" theory)

Or I'd be comparing a man's voice with that of an eerily similar-sounding impersonator.

In both cases, the differences will be so subtle, so nuanced, so small, and the variables so numerous (different eras, different moods, different recording systems), that it will all be completely subjective.

If you didn't know any better, and if you were looking for an impostor, would you not say that "Someone Put your hand out", "Money", "Beautiful Girl" and "2000 Watts" are sung by at least a few different people?

You might say that's a lot of words to cover the fact I won't produce those comparisons you ask for. Well, here's what I submit : I submit that KYHU sounds just like any number of other MJ ballads. That is my comparison : KYHU to most MJ ballads. I think that had that song been streamed first, there would be no controversy now.

Clearly you haven't heard the complete TPI comparisons. The differences between Jason and MJ are far from subtle. The reason believers haven't made any comparisons is because they can't. And to say that anyone could think the songs you mention could sound like a different person to the untrained ear is ridiculous. KYHU was the next song to leak after BN and if anything, the reaction was worse. The song does not have one word sung by Michael. It is clearly Jason, vibrato and all. Different eras, different moods, different sound systems - these are the same tired old excuses. Michael always sounded like Michael, no matter what the era, even if he was sininging down the phone he is instantly recognisable. Those excuses just don't wash any more.
 

Arklove

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
18,071
Points
83
Location
Canada
But those 12 songs DO sound like MJ. Well actually, we haven't heard them all in full, but what I've heard sounds like MJ -- with background vocals often brought to the fore, to cover up for incomplete, imperfect vocals. Of course, the voice on the songs also resembles that of MJ impersonator Malachi, but that says more about his uncanny vocal resemblance than about the possibility an implausible, far-fetched hoax.

I think you need to read more carefully what Bumper said...He said the songs don't sound Michael Jackson. They may sound LIKE MJ, but that doesn't mean it is MJ...What the doubters are trying to say is that someone can sound LIKE MJ, but these songs don't have any classic MJ vocal traits at all...If you disagree with me, then where do you hear the vocal traits that we have heard time and time again in Michael's genuine songs since the beginning of his career?

However, they do have the vocal traits of Jason Malachi all over them, backed up with comparisons.

That's why we constantly ask believers to provide comparisons if they feel that the songs are indeed Michael Jackson singing. If you believe it's him singing, where do you hear his voice, besides the copy/pasted adlibs, and strung together words?

I ask out of all curiosity, just like anytime I hear someone say to me, 'Oh, that sounds like so and so..'...and I'd be like, 'Oh really, where do you hear it, because I don't hear it'....

Simple question.
 

Chamife

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,123
Points
0
Location
The Netherlands
What it boils down to, IMO, is that you hear Michael or you don't. And if you hear Michael, it's obviously impossible to a lot of 'believers' ( even with the comparisons that should take all doubts away) to make them hear anything else.

And if a subject is close enough to your heart or you are passionate about something you make/find the time. I'm very grateful for all the fans (Pentum, TPImaster and maybe others who's names I don't know) who make them, because I forward them to fans I know who still believe it's Michael to let them think about it (and let it simmer for a while..:cheeky:).
I wish I could make them. I'm a bit jealous, actually..lol.

ETA: I never thought Jason Malachi sounded like Michael. NEVUHHHHH. Totally different and totally uncomparable.
 
Last edited:

Lucilla

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
3,363
Points
0
Location
Neverland since 1991
a quick question, sorry.

But did Sony or the Estate go to investigate JM before the album was finished? is this real or false?
 
Last edited:

Arklove

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
18,071
Points
83
Location
Canada
What it boils down to, IMO, is that you hear Michael or you don't. And if you hear Michael, it's obviously impossible to a lot of 'believers' ( even with the comparisons that should take all doubts away) to make them hear anything else.

Well, that's the thing...If those who believe it's Michael feel so deeply that it's him that it's almost impossible for them to hear anyone else, then that leads me to believe that they can easily point out where they hear Michael...IMO

As doubters, we've spent almost this entire thread pointing out the reasons why we don't hear Michael...and that doesn't even include the comparisons. Even if the comparisons didn't exist, my belief/ears still stand...To me, the comparisons are just interesting to listen to, really lol
 

Chamife

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,123
Points
0
Location
The Netherlands
Well, that's the thing...If those who believe it's Michael feel so deeply that it's him that it's almost impossible for them to hear anyone else, then that leads me to believe that they can easily point out where they hear Michael...IMO

As doubters, we've spent almost this entire thread pointing out the reasons why we don't hear Michael...and that doesn't even include the comparisons. Even if the comparisons didn't exist, my belief/ears still stand...To me, the comparisons are just interesting to listen to, really lol
Yes, I've also asked that a few times to some fans, but I never got a satisfying answer or you get answers like:"I don't have problems with the songs, so why should I, I hear Michael, period", or no answer at all. Mmm...okies...:scratch:
 

Arklove

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
18,071
Points
83
Location
Canada
Yes, I've also asked that a few times to some fans, but I never got a satisfying answer or you get answers like:"I don't have problems with the songs, so why should I, I hear Michael, period", or no answer at all. Mmm...okies...:scratch:

Yeah, same here....But if they're going to debate everything else in this thread, why not answer that question? lol

@lucilla....not sure...I'd have to go back to the original statement...
 
Top