Michael - The Great Album Debate

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Umm... I posted in this thread that I feel and hear Michael all over Stay? No one caught that? I also hear Michael almost all over Breaking News, except some of the backing vocals.

Keep Your Head up starts akwardly, for me, but it still feels like Michael throughout the whole song, and sounds like him especially after the first chorus hits.

Monster is a little harder to tell, because of the type of track it is, but at the end I feel and hear Michael very much.

Oh, yeah, and All I Need is all Michael.

So yeah, there's my opinion, since some people think no one hears Michael Jackson completely on these tracks and everyone has a 'reason' why he sounds different.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Insulting to me is disrespecting someone's effort. Not liking it is another thing.

The lyrics of Monster being insulting is puzzling to me though. I interpret it as Michael echoing the words spoken about him, like he's some kind of monster, while at the same time mirroring this image at his perpetrators. Who's haunting who? I think it's quite ingeniously done.

I'm not a blind fan either, not loving everything that he has ever done, but I felt I had to defend these lyrics as they are mocked in this thread regularly and that's a shame as I see them as one of MJ's last gifts.

I'm glad that you enjoy the lyrics of Monster. Thanks for posting your interpretation.

I respectfully disagree. When I read the lyrics as a whole, the monster is someone who stalks him, who haunts him, who guns for the money. To me, it's quite obvious who the lyricist refers the monster to.

I agree with you that disrespecting someone's effort can be insulting. Isn't it what Sony has done to Michael all along? Has Sony ever respected Michael's effort in Invincible (the lack of promotion)? This Is It (Paul Anka fiasco)? Michael?

I gave my opinion that I dislike Monsters and Breaking News. I don't feel I have disrespected anyone's effort or insulted anyone. Similarly, I never like Lady Gaga or Britney Spears, I actually don't think of their works in high regard, have I insulted them?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

When I first heard Monster, I thought he was talking about how the media call him a monster and stuff all of the time for his face, plastic surgery, skin color, etc.

I noticed the double-meaning right away and also thought it was brilliant.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^ Love: Well, callling lyrics 'embarrasing' comes across as insulting to me, but let's not turn this into a word game.

In reply to Sam, I think many have stated before, and I did for sure, that Keep Your Head Up is clearly Michael and i don't notice any strange differences in that song at all. About the rest see my last reply to you. Sorry, this thread is moving so quickly.

Jesta, I feel sorry for you. The people mocking you don't know any better. Their loss! I hope you feel better soon :)
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

If TEDDY RILEY claims that Michael is alive, then, before believing him I must first believe that FAKING DEATH is possible. If faking death is possible, then I'll believe him that Michael is alive.

However, if I believe that faking death is possible, then I can also believe that FAKING VOCALS is way easier to do than faking death.

But before even coming to this conclusion using this way of argumentation, let's not forget that the Cascio tracks have been questioned from the beginning, not because of jealousy, but because they don't sound Michael! If so, why bother wasting time and money in analyzing the vocals? After all, they were legally registered under Michael Jackson's name, weren't they? So why analyzing them?... Unless the name Michael Jackson was used as an alias by the imposter.

Whichever way you try to understand the Cascio tracks, they always lead to the conclusion that something is wrong about them: voice, accent, lyrics, analysis, no traces, testing public by streaming Breaking News, Cascio claiming he was pushing buttons as a proof on Oprah, Teddy saying "it is Michael" as logically as "he is alive", etc.

Fans ears along with The Jacksons family ears are being completely ignored and credit given to the one who claims that Michael is alive and to the company that seeks direct profit.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^okay. i take the word "embarassing" back. i'll replace it with "horrible"... does it pass the sensitivity test?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

If TEDDY RILEY claims that Michael is alive, then, before believing him I must first believe that FAKING DEATH is possible. If faking death is possible, then I'll believe him that Michael is alive.

You don't have to first agree with everything someone is saying to trust his opinion on an entirely different matter. Teddy is confused over Michael's death, many of us still are.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You don't have to first agree with everything someone is saying to trust his opinion on an entirely different matter. Teddy is confused over Michael's death, many of us still are.

Well it is a question of credibility. If someone is not credible on one subject, it is going to be difficult to be credible on another.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^okay. i take the word "embarassing" back. i'll replace it with "horrible"... does it pass the sensitivity test?

You are so kind ;) It does sound better actually. It takes away the 'you should feel ashamed you wrote this/enjoy this' feeling and replaces it for a more onedimensional qualification.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Well it is a question of credibility. If someone is not credible on one subject, it is going to be difficult to be credible on another.

I don't think it's that easy to lose credibility. Teddy has worked with MJ over 20 years and has been a loyal friend to him. Him being confused over his death doesn't flush all that away.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You are so kind ;) It does sound better actually. It takes away the 'you should feel ashamed you wrote this/enjoy this' feeling and replaces it for a more onedimensional qualification.

let me put it this way. i meant what i wrote. there is no cryptic message or underlying meaning. i'm not teddy riley. it's not my intention to make anyone feels uneasy.

if one enjoys the album, keeps enjoying it. no one is saying you should be ashamed of yourself because you like the album. no one.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

*edit* i said something mean. i'm not going to leave it. let's just say there's someone on this forum that has been on my ignore list for a very long time, and i'm surprised it's taken people this long to realize he/she is a troll.

second:
^
to:
4: yes he did. the early demos of BJ.

DID I REALLY JUST READ THAT?! seriously? seriously? i have the early demos of billie jean on my mp3 player. i think he sounds glorious.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

There's not one person on the opposite side who claims that the songs sound just like Michael Jackson. Everyone has an excuse as to why they sound 'different'. No one on here claims that these songs sound like every other Michael Jackson song that they've ever heard. Not in the months that I've been posting, at any rate.

Nobody says for example the vocals at monster sounds exactly like let's say thriller , you are right on that. But that's not required for it to be Michael.

For example when Michael did the TII announcement people commented on how his voice was "deeper" than usual. so it was "different" but still Michael.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Nobody says for example the vocals at monster sounds exactly like let's say thriller , you are right on that. But that's not required for it to be Michael.

For example when Michael did the TII announcement people commented on how his voice was "deeper" than usual. so it was "different" but still Michael.

There's a whole number of video files I can provide of Michael singing or talking in that lower voice.

There's absolutely nothing you can provide that sounds like the Cascio songs.

That's the real difference.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I don't think it's that easy to lose credibility. Teddy has worked with MJ over 20 years and has been a loyal friend to him. Him being confused over his death doesn't flush all that away.

Of course, flushing away Taryll's credibility without any reason except for so called jaelousy is ok, but Teddy may say whatever he wants he'll be believed anyway. Thatis what I call being BIASED from the very beginning!

"Jealousy!" He's Michael's nephew, what does he have to be jaelous of, many envy him to have an oncle called Michael Jackson. THE Michael Jackson, and yet Teddy's credibility tells you that Taryll's jaelous. It's really an against nature belief. Upside down and inside out.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Nobody says for example the vocals at monster sounds exactly like let's say thriller , you are right on that. But that's not required for it to be Michael.

For example when Michael did the TII announcement people commented on how his voice was "deeper" than usual. so it was "different" but still Michael.


Please Ivy don't go that way. Michael's voice was nothing drastically different from his previous performances. Michael was always able to use his deep voice, even when he was extremely young, the voice is uncomparable to the Cascio voice:

[youtube]_BnliI7kXD8[/youtube]
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Of course, flushing away Taryll's credibility without any reason except for so called jaelousy is ok, but Teddy may say whatever he wants he'll be believed anyway. Thatis what I call being BIASED from the very beginning!

"Jealousy!" He's Michael's nephew, what does he have to be jaelous of, many envy him to have an oncle called Michael Jackson. THE Michael Jackson, and yet Teddy's credibility tells you that Taryll's jaelous. It's really an against nature belief. Upside down and inside out.

Taryll is jealous because his songs are not selected to be included in MICHAEL. (Hold on, isn't he the dude featured in the spoken bridge of Hollywood Tonight. Didn't he give rave review of Hold My Hand?)

Taryll is jealous because he didn't have a 20-year working relationship with Michael. (Hold on, didn't he spend countless hours in Neverland, sit on Michael's laps countless times, travelled with Michael, played with Michael?)

Yeah, speaking of bias and prejudice...
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The whole controversy thing is so weird. I don't really understand and I think I won't understand how something like that is even possible with Michael Jackson who is one of the biggest stars in the world... To release tracks that are edited so much it changes to result way too much. This is something like Michael himself would have done when living to raise controversy, but not now anymore by other people... I don't understand why they just had to release tracks like that when there was much more completed tracks... Have they ever told any real reasons why exactly those tracks were chosen?!
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

i honestly just got back from a bar where i swear, they played breaking news.

Like they actually played "breaking news" really loudly on the sound system, mixed in with other top 40 songs. It took me a second to even realize. i was like "wait, what? WHAT?" it was so bizarre.

why breaking news? why not the actually officially released single? has anyone else heard this song in public?! I asked the dj where he got it and he said the songs that were playing were part of a "house mix" (meaning, owned by the restaurant/bar) and he hadn't put it on, it was controlled by the computer.

soooooooooooo i don't know what's up with that. like hopefully it's just the restaurant/bar owner likes the song or something. i would hate to think that sony is releasing it with a mix of other popular songs for use in public setting like that. Im worried that really might be the case because it was a chain restaurant, not a mom-and-pop, ya know? scary.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

let me put it this way. i meant what i wrote. there is no cryptic message or underlying meaning. i'm not teddy riley. it's not my intention to make anyone feels uneasy.

if one enjoys the album, keeps enjoying it. no one is saying you should be ashamed of yourself because you like the album. no one.

Geezz, I'm not saying it does have a cryptic meaning or makes me feel uneasy? You think all you want, you don't have to change your words for me. You did though, so I responded with my true thoughts, and now you say you meant what you said anyway, fine! Don't waste your time then to sugarcoat it just to show you think I'm oversensitive while deriving attention from the actual topic. I was just saying that I would prefer myself not to use such words as embarrasing to describe someone else's work. But like I said before, our little word game is of no interest of the readers of this forum, so I'll leave at this.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

i honestly just got back from a bar where i swear, they played breaking news.

Like they actually played "breaking news" really loudly on the sound system, mixed in with other top 40 songs. It took me a second to even realize. i was like "wait, what? WHAT?" it was so bizarre.

why breaking news? why not the actually officially released single? has anyone else heard this song in public?! I asked the dj where he got it and he said the songs that were playing were part of a "house mix" (meaning, owned by the restaurant/bar) and he hadn't put it on, it was controlled by the computer.

soooooooooooo i don't know what's up with that. like hopefully it's just the restaurant/bar owner likes the song or something. i would hate to think that sony is releasing it with a mix of other popular songs for use in public setting like that. Im worried that really might be the case because it was a chain restaurant, not a mom-and-pop, ya know? scary.


Funny, it was playing in Applebee's throughout the weekend.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Ok, im gonna try this ONE MORE TIME (cmon people give it a go)

Lets do it together, AIM: To find the truth

Problem, Whether or not Michael Jackson is on the Cascio tracks.

Method:

1. Post an answer in the form of common sense (not what YOU think, what COMMON SENSE thinks)

2. You must then think of every exception to this answer (Things that make it either completely incorrect, or partially)

3. If exceptions (any) are found, that means your statement is false, so move to step 4.

4. Try to present an answer which takes into account the exceptions.

5. The final answer, once you come up with your final answer.

Post it down here like this

And the next person must use the same method on the answer that you gave, if we repeat this, we will find the truth :smilerolleyes:
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I've actually learned to enjoy Keep Your Had Up, Breaking News and Monster perfectly fine as Jason Malichi songs. At this stage, I can't imagine how I ever thought it could be Michael. It's strangely obvious at this point, to me at least.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Well it is a question of credibility. If someone is not credible on one subject, it is going to be difficult to be credible on another.


So, using your analogy, someone who claimed that it was Michael Jackson singing 'Mamacita', when it was clearly Jason Malachi, then their credibility should be questioned?

Interesting.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Taryll is jealous because his songs are not selected to be included in MICHAEL. (Hold on, isn't he the dude featured in the spoken bridge of Hollywood Tonight. Didn't he give rave review of Hold My Hand?)

Taryll is jealous because he didn't have a 20-year working relationship with Michael. (Hold on, didn't he spend countless hours in Neverland, sit on Michael's laps countless times, travelled with Michael, played with Michael?)

Yeah, speaking of bias and prejudice...


Listen, if Michael's own brothers and sisters were jelous of him (one even claiming he WAS a child molester, and at least one other releasing a song 'dissing' him in public), then the nephews are not immune from a bit of jelousy, or perhaps 'pressure' from their elders.

We already have enough evidence that most of the family are not happy with what Michael left them - in terms of money and/or control - and even his own father tried to plug his own ventures whilst Mj was not even 'cold'.

I'm sorry, I don't go along with all this "they're family so they can be trusted!" nonsense. If people really believe that then they must have a family nothing like any other, and they must not have been watching the Jacksons very closely for the last 40 years.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Michael has always warned us about how people are sharks and will do anything for money. He's told us that Sony lie, cheat and steal. If a large portion of us don't believe it's Michael's voice, there must be a reason for that, and who do we trust, now that Michael isn't around? Do we trust the record company, who tells us that it's because of voice altering? Voice altering that was never needed or used on any demo we had ever heard, before he died?

The way I explain it is that Sony are once again lying, cheating and stealing, like they always have been. They're milking Michael's name for all it's worth. They know it's unlikely anyone will successfully and lawfully disprove that it's Michael's voice. That, or Eddie Cascio himself hired Malachi, and is fooling everyone, even Sony, because he fancies himself as a songwriter and producer.

All of the family, including the nephews, say it's not him. Quincy Jones says he can't tell. Teddy Riley tried to say that the proof was in the album booklet's handwritten notes, which is hilarious, since those notes don't even relate to the songs in question. He also believes that Michael is still alive somewhere, so he'll clearly believe whatever he wants to believe.
50 Cent says Michael contacted him about Monster - again, this isn't proof that it's Michael's voice on the tracks, it's merely an indication that Michael was working on a song called Monster. Plus, we're simply taking his word for it.

There has been absolutely no proof presented that Michael had anything to do with these songs, or that Michael ever recorded anything in the Cascio studio, and I can absolutely guarantee you that no proof ever will arise. They've talked about having proof, but where is it? Nowhere. Doesn't exist.

Liars, cheaters and stealers.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

WOOOOAAAAAHHHH.

Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah Woah.


Woah.

In all honesty, the 5 Cascio tracks are better than a lot of MJ's released output, especially the stuff on Invincible. So whoever is singing them, Eddie Cascio came up with better material than the likes of Rodney Jerkins and Babyface; this alone makes him OK in my book. Burt Bacharach even considered All I Need worthy of his efforts, which says a lot.

I think it's all psychological : you're so angry at the Cascios and at the Cascio tracks, since you think they're fake, that you see them as much worse than they really are.

You talked of a parallel universe earlier. In a parallel universe, had those 5 songs come out on Invincible, you'd be praising them and calling them among the best on the album. It's all psychological.


I agree with all of this.

I love MJ like a brother, and I followed him as a young child from the early 1970's, but he did release some toe-curling album tracks - based on what he liked rahter than what the public might like. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, he had produced enough masterpieces to warrant the odd self-indulgence, but it can not be denied that not everything he did was 'mind-blowingly' good.

Michael's 'best' stuff was the very best, and can not be beaten by any artist in my book - and there is plenty of it. His good stuff was equal to, or better than, most other major artists. But we still need to open our eyes to the fact that some of his material, particularly later in life, was very personal to him and perhaps not made for mass consumption.

The cascio tracks are some of his better recent works, in my opinion. I can see he was getting his 'mojo' back working with these guys. It's just sad he wasn't around to help complete these projects.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Michael has always warned us about how people are sharks and will do anything for money. He's told us that Sony lie, cheat and steal. If a large portion of us don't believe it's Michael's voice, there must be a reason for that, and who do we trust, now that Michael isn't around? Do we trust the record company, who tells us that it's because of voice altering? Voice altering that was never needed or used on any demo we had ever heard, before he died?

The way I explain it is that Sony are once again lying, cheating and stealing, like they always have been. They're milking Michael's name for all it's worth. They know it's unlikely anyone will successfully and lawfully disprove that it's Michael's voice. That, or Eddie Cascio himself hired Malachi, and is fooling everyone, even Sony, because he fancies himself as a songwriter and producer.

All of the family, including the nephews, say it's not him. Quincy Jones says he can't tell. Teddy Riley tried to say that the proof was in the album booklet's handwritten notes, which is hilarious, since those notes don't even relate to the songs in question. He also believes that Michael is still alive somewhere, so he'll clearly believe whatever he wants to believe.
50 Cent says Michael contacted him about Monster - again, this isn't proof that it's Michael's voice on the tracks, it's merely an indication that Michael was working on a song called Monster. Plus, we're simply taking his word for it.

There has been absolutely no proof presented that Michael had anything to do with these songs, or that Michael ever recorded anything in the Cascio studio, and I can absolutely guarantee you that no proof ever will arise. They've talked about having proof, but where is it? Nowhere. Doesn't exist.

Liars, cheaters and stealers.

Your views and opinions are going to have to be proven, someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty, and as far as i'm concerned if Michael trusted these people and spent more time with these people than his own family, i trust them too, he would never just "pop in" to see his family, it had to be a set date, he was obviously very comfortable with them.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Michael has always warned us about how people are sharks and will do anything for money. He's told us that Sony lie, cheat and steal. If a large portion of us don't believe it's Michael's voice, there must be a reason for that, and who do we trust, now that Michael isn't around? Do we trust the record company, who tells us that it's because of voice altering? Voice altering that was never needed or used on any demo we had ever heard, before he died?

The way I explain it is that Sony are once again lying, cheating and stealing, like they always have been. They're milking Michael's name for all it's worth. They know it's unlikely anyone will successfully and lawfully disprove that it's Michael's voice. That, or Eddie Cascio himself hired Malachi, and is fooling everyone, even Sony, because he fancies himself as a songwriter and producer.

All of the family, including the nephews, say it's not him. Quincy Jones says he can't tell. Teddy Riley tried to say that the proof was in the album booklet's handwritten notes, which is hilarious, since those notes don't even relate to the songs in question. He also believes that Michael is still alive somewhere, so he'll clearly believe whatever he wants to believe.
50 Cent says Michael contacted him about Monster - again, this isn't proof that it's Michael's voice on the tracks, it's merely an indication that Michael was working on a song called Monster. Plus, we're simply taking his word for it.

There has been absolutely no proof presented that Michael had anything to do with these songs, or that Michael ever recorded anything in the Cascio studio, and I can absolutely guarantee you that no proof ever will arise. They've talked about having proof, but where is it? Nowhere. Doesn't exist.

Liars, cheaters and stealers.


You need to get over the 'Sony hate'. You're stuck in 2001 and it's clouding your judgement.

Hey, don't feel too bad though, at least you're not on your own here.
 
Back
Top