Michael - The Great Album Debate

[StellaJackson]

What makes me think that is because he hasn't even mentioned it. If you were Omer and asked for proof, you got proof, would you then just forget about it? Not write on Twitter about it or share it with the fans? I would not just forget about it and "come to a conclusion".

I don't care. You will see in the end, that the doubters were always right. Please remember.

I agree with you Pentum. It shocks me to the core that people who claim to have an intimate knowledge of Michael's voice still try to defend these songs. It is undeniably Jason. We can all recognise Michael's voice, we can all recognise Barry White's voice and by God, we can all recognise Jason's.

 

[Pentum]

I agree with you Pentum. It shocks me to the core that people who claim to have an intimate knowledge of Michael's voice still try to defend these songs. It is undeniably Jason. We can all recognise Michael's voice, we can all recognise Barry White's voice and by God, we can all recognise Jason's.

Sometimes, I actually think some people don't care, as long as it says it's Micahel Jackson's voice on papir, it's him. SMH.

 

[Arklove]

I really don't care what Paris or any of the kids say about the songs...it holds no weight on what I believe...I have my own ears and my own beliefs based on what we've been presented with regards to these songs...the children apparently said it's not daddy singing on those songs - so clearly I hear the same as them...Paris said it's not Michael on Hollywood Tonight and I disagree with her. ...I never once gave any type of credibility to those kids....I don't NEED anyone's credibility to affirm what my own ears hear after listening to Michael Jackson for the majority of my life...

I'll say it again - it does not matter to me one bit what others say about the songs and it never will ...that's called an unwavering conviction...I don't need others to tell me what I am hearing or not hearing ....I'm not blind, deaf or dumb...the voice is as clear as day ....it's SIMPLE

 

[love is magical]

I wrote this before I'll write it again. The significance of that tweet is that it shows us that she's not a credible source to determine authenticity of these songs. If she was wrong once (hollywood tonight), she can be wrong again.

and it's okay like mentioned before she is a kid that might not have any information to start with. She will not bring any resolution /end to this debate but that tweet definitely hurts the doubters "mj's kids don't believe it's him" argument because now the counterargument "mj's kids don't know what they are talking about, they think HT is fake" is introduced.

Like I said as far as the Cascio songs go her saying they are fake or even they are real won't mean a thing as she's factually wrong about HT and it makes her not credible in this debate.

To be fair, many doubters have doubt not becasue of what the family said, what Katherine and the children might have said, we have doubts mostly because of the fact that the vocal and sonic quality of the songs are not consistent with the other Michael Jackson songs (released or unreleased.)

Of course, I've seen doubters brought up that argument. But, far more here formed our opinions based on what we actually heard with our own ears, not what other people said.

EDIT: When I wrote this post, I didn't see Arky's post. It's pure coincidental that we have similar thoughts.

 

[ivy]

Am I the only one who is confused with this? So, it's posted on Frank's FB, but is not posted by Frank, yet signed by Frank. What?

someone posted on his wall - friends can post on their friends wall and it seems like it's coming from a conversation or message because he starts by answering a question "no it's not sony" but obviously he hasn't himself posted it publicly we cannot say that he said it for certain.

Also, if Eddie had handwritten notes from Michael specifically pertaining to these songs, don't you think he might have shown them on Oprah, as opposed to a picture of a lonely microphone or submitted them for the album booklet like the other songs? Or even shown them on facebook etc?

see you are setting the standards and demanding actions and if they don't fulfill your wishes you call them a liar. see the problem here?

What makes me think that is because he hasn't even mentioned it. If you were Omer and asked for proof, you got proof, would you then just forget about it? Not write on Twitter about it or share it with the fans? I would not just forget about it and "come to a conclusion".

and betray his friends trust in him because you as a fan want him to blab about it on the Internet, because you set a standard of "must do" action for him? Cascio's are the one who is determining what they'll say and how they'll say it. I heard that they don't want this issue to be debated as they believe the longer the fake song debate is going on it hurts Michael the most and no one else. so perhaps they discussed this in detail with Omer but asked him to not comment on it. Do you know that Branca refuses to comment on Jackson family on record? Why? They called him everything under the sun as well but he still keeps silent. He could have said a million things about them as well but he doesn't. I think there are some people out there that looks to the situation and rather than turn into a full on fight that would drag Michael's name in the middle, they keep silent and take the abuse coming their way.

I don't care. You will see in the end, that the doubters were always right. Please remember.

might be or might not be the case. honestly I don't care but I'm curious to see what will happen if people with such conviction are proven wrong. what then?

But Teddy Riley claiming to have seen handwritten notes is reliable? Come on.

did I say that? you can make an argument about Teddy's credibility , similarly Paris's credibility has became an issue with that tweet. and that handwritten notes were just an example of what might exists and we haven't seen. I do not claim them to be "facts". I merely wrote them as a "possibility".

pentum assumed that Omer went it to Cascio's house and said "hey dudes what's up let's dance" because he's not blabbing about the songs on twitter. I'm just saying we have no idea whether or not he said "what's up with these songs", what Cascio's might have told him and showed him, what Omer had already knew due to his close relation to Michael and how and why he formed an opinion about the Cascio songs and Cascio's personally. and that's what Omer means by "judging without knowing". we know nothing about these but yet people was fast to label him as a betrayer.

 

[Pentum]

might be or might not be the case. honestly I don't care but I'm curious to see what will happen if people with such conviction are proven wrong. what then?

This will never happen, but if does, I'm dead.

 

[StellaJackson]

someone posted on his wall - friends can post on their friends wall and it seems like it's coming from a conversation or message because he starts by answering a question "no it's not sony" but obviously he hasn't himself posted it publicly we cannot say that he said it for certain.



see you are setting the standards and demanding actions and if they don't fulfill your wishes you call them a liar. see the problem here?




and betray his friends trust in him because you as a fan want him to blab about it on the Internet, because you set a standard of "must do" action for him? Cascio's are the one who is determining what they'll say and how they'll say it. I heard that they don't want this issue to be debated as they believe the longer the fake song debate is going on it hurts Michael the most and no one else. so perhaps they discussed this in detail with Omer but asked him to not comment on it. Do you know that Branca refuses to comment on Jackson family on record? Why? They called him everything under the sun as well but he still keeps silent. He could have said a million things about them as well but he doesn't. I think there are some people out there that looks to the situation and rather than turn into a full on fight that would drag Michael's name in the middle, they keep silent and take the abuse coming their way.



might be or might not be the case. honestly I don't care but I'm curious to see what will happen if people with such conviction are proven wrong. what then?



did I say that? you can make an argument about Teddy's credibility , similarly Paris's credibility has became an issue with that tweet. and that handwritten notes were just an example of what might exists and we haven't seen. I do not claim them to be "facts". I merely wrote them as a "possibility".

I'm not setting the standards, I'm using common sense and logic. If they had proof, they would have shown it. And I did not state in that post that they were liars. Although I am now because it is true. Eddie Cascio is a liar, a cheat and a fraud. I stand by that and always will. Simple as that. If you don't care about this, then why do you keep defending these people? Is Michael's musical legacy and the respect his fans and consumers deserve not important to you?

 

[ivy]

This will never happen, but if does, I'm dead.

what does that mean? dead?

 

[StellaJackson]

what does that mean? dead?

You don't ever want to know.

 

[Arklove]

Speaking of credibility....That statement put out back in November holds no credibility...They say the best musicologists in the world were hired and state it's Michael Jackson on lead vocals. Yet, there are no names attached to this statement. I've mentioned this before...If a researcher has done good, solid work, they would want their names attached to this work, no? How am I to believe that what they say is true when there are no credentials attached to this statement? Why do believers ignore this tidbit? It's said that these types of analyses aren't ever 100%, so why did people start believing that the songs were Michael's voice after this statement? It seems to me that it's more the believers who determine what they are hearing based on 'credibility' and basically strictly suspicion, because that's all that statement is. If people can't trust their ears anymore, then that's their problem.

 

[ivy]

I'm not setting the standards, I'm using common sense and logic. If they had proof, they would have shown it. And I did not state in that post that they were liars. Although I am now because it is true. Eddie Cascio is a liar, a cheat and a fraud. I stand by that and always will. Simple as that. If you don't care about this, then why do you keep defending these people? Is Michael's musical legacy and the respect his fans and consumers deserve not important to you?

try legal sense as well.. if they were expecting any lawsuit from the Jackson's showing their hand (what they had, who did what test and got the results how) would be the dumbest thing as it will give the other side to come up with stronger counter argument. Legally speaking even if they have any evidence holding it and not showing their hand makes all the sense and gives them the advantage.

I said I don't care about being wrong or right or who is right or wrong in this debate. I really wish you read my posts better.

and please get of your high horse with that "s Michael's musical legacy and the respect his fans and consumers deserve not important to you?" crap. I personally think the songs have Michael's vocals and I'm entitled to voice my opinion. Unlike you I do not claim my opinion to be the absolute truth and then build on it and try to guilt trip other fans with "Michael's legacy" etc.

You don't ever want to know.

No I want to know and I want Pentum to answer it please.

Speaking of credibility....That statement put out back in November holds no credibility...They say the best musicologists in the world were hired and state it's Michael Jackson on lead vocals. Yet, there are no names attached to this statement. I've mentioned this before...If a researcher has done good, solid work, they would want their names attached to this work, no? How am I to believe that what they say is true when there are no credentials attached to this statement? Why do believers ignore this tidbit?

just answered it above. think about the legal sense. put yourself in that position and tell me will you say for example "we hired john doe and he did this test and we got this certainty rate" and open the doors for the opposite side to hire the better expert, with better techniques and better outcome? and then there's also the witness tampering or fan abuse as well. you know damn well if they gave the name of the expert the fans would have bugged him to death. look to what happened to Omer in the last 24 hours.

 

[Arklove]

^^ I'm sorry, but if you really believe that's the reason, then I just can't agree with that....lol...

If research was done on a piece of work, then I'd sure as hell need to see it...If it's science, it needs the back up credibility (EVEN IF IT'S CONTROVERSIAL...even if the fans would bombard them with calls, questions, emails, whatever...loool...What? Are they scared? That's funny...

 

[StellaJackson]

try legal sense as well.. if they were expecting any lawsuit from the Jackson's showing their hand (what they had, who did what test and got the results how) would be the dumbest thing as it will give the other side to come up with stronger counter argument. Legally speaking even if they have any evidence holding it and not showing their hand makes all the sense and gives them the advantage.

I said I don't care about being wrong or right or who is right or wrong in this debate. I really wish you read my posts better.

and please get of your high horse with that "s Michael's musical legacy and the respect his fans and consumers deserve not important to you?" crap. I personally think the songs have Michael's vocals and I'm entitled to voice my opinion. Unlike you I do not claim my opinion to be the absolute truth and then build on it and try to guilt trip other fans with "Michael's legacy" etc.



No I want to know and I want Pentum to answer it please.

Your absolutely entitiled to your opinion. I just wholeheartedly disagree with you, and frankly I do find such an opinion to be offensive to Michael as an artist. When his own fans can't tell the difference between Michael and a shoddy impersonator, it is extremely worrying. But in fairness to you, you haven't heard the rest of the songs so to a point it's understandable. But when you do, oh boy...

 

[ivy]

^^ I'm sorry, but if you really believe that's the reason, then I just can't agree with that....lol...

If research was done on a piece of work, then I'd sure as hell need to see it...If it's science, it needs the back up credibility...Period.

I'm basing that on other examples. One example I mentioned multiple times is the statement that trident uses "5 out of 4 dentist recommend chewing gum" , they never mentioned any details of that research (how they did it, who they asked, what they asked, when they did it). Truth is it's a survey done in 1960s that no one knows any details of, no one knows if it will hold today or not but they are still using that tag-line without showing of it's credibility.

Taco Bell has been sued in regards to fillers in their meat and that they aren't really selling beef (lawsuit claimed it was only 36% beef). Only after the lawsuit Taco Bell released their meat combination ingredients and what they had in addition to beef in their meat. For example your logic says that as USDA considers that meat to be acceptable, Taco Bell should be able to say and promote their products with "hey guys our products have 88% beef and 12% fillers but it's okay according to US standards".

and I'm saying that won't happen and Taco Bell will continue to call it "meat/beef" and their proprietary combination and will only give the details when they face a lawsuit. they would never admit voluntarily that they aren't selling 100% beef unless they have to. It's what happened due to that lawsuit.

It's the same thing here. Like you mentioned these tests aren't perfect, we all can agree that there are at least Porte's vocals are added. Do you really expect them to release a test result that says for example 88% certain it's Michael with combined Porte vocals? Really? (note : 88% is just an example the same percentage from Taco Bell)

Your absolutely entitiled to your opinion. I just wholeheartedly disagree with you, and frankly I do find such an opinion to be offensive to Michael as an artist. When his own fans can't tell the difference between Michael and a shoddy impersonator, it is extremely worrying. But in fairness to you, you haven't heard the rest of the songs so to a point it's understandable. But when you do, oh boy...

you find my opinion offensive because you think you are absolutely correct and what you think is fact. Well I find that unrealistic and ignorant.

 

[Pentum]

Ivy, have you even listened to Burn 2 Nite?

 

[Arklove]

^^ Ivy I've seen you use those examples before, but as I've said...If you want to believe it's Michael's vocals based on a statement that doesn't give any type of credentials at all, then that's your issue...You can go ahead and believe it....I know you hear Michael in the songs as well (even though you and countless others can`t point out where we`ve heard Michael sound like that in any genuine MJ song), but you seem to rather want to cling on to these examples and legal sense and whatever....That`s fine, I`m not putting you down for that, believe what you want...

All I'm saying is that buyer beware.....If there are no credentials attached to a piece of work, then why should I be inclined to believe it? No one should, really..

 

[StellaJackson]

I'm basing that on other examples. One example I mentioned multiple times is the statement that trident uses "5 out of 4 dentist recommend chewing gum" , they never mentioned any details of that research (how they did it, who they asked, what they asked, when they did it). Truth is it's a survey done in 1960s that no one knows any details of, no one knows if it will hold today or not but they are still using that tag-line without showing of it's credibility.

Taco Bell has been sued in regards to fillers in their meat and that they aren't really selling beef (lawsuit claimed it was only 36% beef). Only after the lawsuit Taco Bell released their meat combination ingredients and what they had in addition to beef in their meat. For example your logic says that as USDA considers that meat to be acceptable, Taco Bell should be able to say and promote their products with "hey guys our products have 88% beef and 12% fillers but it's okay according to US standards".

and I'm saying that won't happen and Taco Bell will continue to call it "meat/beef" and their proprietary combination and will only give the details when they face a lawsuit. they would never admit voluntarily that they aren't selling 100% beef unless they have to. It's what happened due to that lawsuit.

It's the same thing here. Like you mentioned these tests aren't perfect, we all can agree that there are at least Porte's vocals are added. Do you really expect them to release a test result that says for example 88% certain it's Michael with combined Porte vocals? Really? (note : 88% is just an example the same percentage from Taco Bell)



you find my opinion offensive because you think you are absolutely correct and what you think is fact. Well I find that unrealistic and ignorant.

I know I am absolutely correct.

 

[StellaJackson]

^^ Ivy I've seen you use those examples before, but as I've said...If you want to believe it's Michael's vocals based on a statement that doesn't give any type of credentials at all, then that's your issue...You can go ahead and believe it....I know you hear Michael in the songs as well (even though you and countless others can`t point out where we`ve heard Michael sound like that in any genuine MJ song), but you seem to rather want to cling on to these examples and legal sense and whatever....That`s fine, I`m not putting you down for that, believe what you want...

All I'm saying is that buyer beware.....If there are no credentials attached to a piece of work, then why should I be inclined to believe it? No one should, really..

That's an interesting point. Taking Breaking News as an example - ignoring the vibrato which is an exact match for Jason, and the pronounciation which is an exact match for Jason, and the accent which is an accent match for Jason, and the fact that it's clearly a much younger voice than Michael, where exactly in the song do you hear Michael? What line for example can you say categorically is him Ivy?

 

[Arklove]

Again, speaking of credentials....As I`m a nurse, I must use `RN` beside my name at all times when charting, signing things, etc. It is legal for me to do so. I know it may not fall in a legal sense when it comes to these songs, or the Trident or Taco Bell example...BUT, if I just sign my name to the chart or legal document without the RN attached to it, who`s to believe me that I`m really a nurse...It could be the signature of anyone...

That`s my point....You can`t just trust what anyone says...However, you CAN trust what your ears hear and what your instincts tell you, ESPECIALLY when nobody is ponying up any type of proof, evidence, or credentials....

They may not HAVE to show me any proof, but that doesn`t automatically mean I HAVE to believe it...That doesn`t mean I`ll be like, `well, ok, since you said that you don`t have to show me proof, then well, ok...`....LOOOOL....I`m not that naive, and others shouldn`t be as well...

 

[love is magical]

^^ Ivy I've seen you use those examples before, but as I've said...If you want to believe it's Michael's vocals based on a statement that doesn't give any type of credentials at all, then that's your issue...You can go ahead and believe it....I know you hear Michael in the songs as well (even though you and countless others can`t point out where we`ve heard Michael sound like that in any genuine MJ song), but you seem to rather want to cling on to these examples and legal sense and whatever....That`s fine, I`m not putting you down for that, believe what you want...

All I'm saying is that buyer beware.....If there are no credentials attached to a piece of work, then why should I be inclined to believe it? No one should, really..

This reminds me of the commercial taglines I have always seen. Like how 90% of women see drastic improvement in their skin tone after two weeks, etc... Many cosmetic companies said they hired scientists or dermatologists to perform tests on their skincare products, blah blah blah... Most of the time I belong to the remaining 10% of the women who don't see any improvement in my skintone.

I keep wondering what type of tests the companies ran. What are the criteria? What are the benchmarks? What I'm sure is that they make perfect legal sense; otherwise the compaines would be sued and lost. But, making perfect legal sense doesn't equate to being the truth.

 

[Pentum]

Where'd you go, Bumper?

And I miss Samhabib. Really...

 

[Jesta]

Bumper's allegedly on holiday.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, have you even listened to Burn 2 Nite?

nope - it's stolen.

and you know about my position. I never said 100% Michael, we all know Teddy's production effects. to me it's the technique. does it have flow or Jason's stop and go?

and what about the dead comment?

^^ Ivy I've seen you use those examples before, but as I've said...If you want to believe it's Michael's vocals based on a statement that doesn't give any type of credentials at all, then that's your issue...You can go ahead and believe it....

hold on there. I never based on my opinion on any statement. go back to my first post on the day that breaking news was streamed. I wrote I'm torn parts I hear Michael , parts I don't.

for me it was never 100% Michael and obviously it couldn't be 100% Jason either.

later I concluded the other vocals to be legit credited vocals. Jason's inferior technique in his songs also played a major part in my determination.

I know you hear Michael in the songs as well (even though you and countless others can`t point out where we`ve heard Michael sound like that in any genuine MJ song),

where exactly in the song do you hear Michael? What line for example can you say categorically is him Ivy?

that ain't true either. Korgnex had posts where he wrote what he believed to be michael's parts and what he believed to be porte. You have been given "all back vocals are Michael" and "boy on soldier boy is definitely Michael" arguments. All was given in response was "I don't hear it". and furthermore you must realize that if a person believes the songs to be 100% Michael they don't have to give you any specific point. You can just pick any second you want and that's Michael.

You must also realize that it doesn't need to be an exact match to previous songs. 2000 watts. did it have a prior similar example? nope.

but you seem to rather want to cling on to these examples and legal sense and whatever....That`s fine, I`m not putting you down for that, believe what you want...

It's not something I believe to base my opinion about the vocals. those are just to show how some arguments aren't really realistic. For example "if they had proof they would have shown it" , that's what you expect. All I'm saying is you don't show your hand in the case of a lawsuit. For example "they had the expert reports they could have published it". Not necessarily no organization voluntarily releases not perfect results unless they are put in a position that they had to. To me that's being realistic in regards to some actions, not a determinant of who is singing on those songs.

All I'm saying is that buyer beware.....If there are no credentials attached to a piece of work, then why should I be inclined to believe it? No one should, really..

why are people believing 4 out 5 dentists recommend gum then? Why do people think they eat beef at Taco Bell? and interesting point. why did you believe let's say invincible to be sang by Michael? What credentials did it come with? Why did anyone believe Rob and Fab was singing on Milli Vanilli album? Did it have any credentials?

That`s my point....You can`t just trust what anyone says...However, you CAN trust what your ears hear and what your instincts tell you, ESPECIALLY when nobody is ponying up any type of proof, evidence, or credentials....

Unfortunately our ears aren't really the best determinant remember the research that I posted before?

 

[love is magical]

Where'd you go, Bumper?

And I miss Samhabib. Really...

Bumpy will be back. He's on vacation now.

At one point, Sam was banned from this sub-forum. He got so discouraged. He's now keeping a distance from the MJ circle.

 

[Arklove]

Bumper`s on holidays for a month....

Sam, no idea...

 

[StellaJackson]

nope - it's stolen.

and you know about my position. I never said 100% Michael, we all know Teddy's production effects. to me it's the technique. does it have flow or Jason's stop and go?

and what about the dead comment?





hold on there. I never based on my opinion on any statement. go back to my first post on the day that breaking news was streamed. I wrote I'm torn parts I hear Michael , parts I don't.

for me it was never 100% Michael and obviously it couldn't be 100% Jason either.

later I concluded the other vocals to be legit credited vocals.





that ain't true either. Korgnex had posts where he wrote what he believed to be michael's parts and what he believed to be porte. You have been given "all back vocals are Michael" and "boy on soldier boy is definitely Michael" arguments. All was given in response was "I don't hear it". and furthermore you must realize that if a person believes the songs to be 100% Michael they don't have to give you any specific point. You can just pick any second you want and that's Michael.

You must also realize that it doesn't need to be an exact match to previous songs. 2000 watts. did it have a prior similar example? nope.



It's not something I believe to base my opinion about the vocals. those are just to show how some arguments aren't really realistic. For example "if they had proof they would have shown it" , that's what you expect. All I'm saying is you don't show your hand in the case of a lawsuit. For example "they had the expert reports they could have published it". Not necessarily no organization voluntarily releases not perfect results unless they are put in a position that they had to. To me that's being realistic in regards to some actions, not a determinant of who is singing on those songs.



why are people believing 4 out 5 dentists recommend gum then? Why do people think they eat beef at Taco Bell? and interesting point. why did you believe let's say invincible to be sang by Michael? What credentials did it come with? Why did anyone believe Rob and Fab was singing on Milli Vanilli album? Did it have any credentials?



Unfortunately our ears aren't really the best determinant remember the research that I posted before?

So why did you listen to Soldier Boy? That was stolen as well. Jason's stop and go is irrelevant. The way these songs were recorded is different to how his own stuff was recorded. There are multiple, multiple takes on each song. In some cases, he literally sings a line on it's own and it's pasted in. So the issue of his so called stop and go technique plays no part here. And the difference with 2000 Watts is that it still sounds like Michael. If you pitch it up it sounds even more like him. Nothing can be done to the Cascio tracks that makes them sound like Michael. Believe me, we've tried.

 

[love is magical]

@Ivy, I'm actually a very skeptical consumer. I chew gums because I want to, not because of whatever dentist recommendation they come with. I buy Colgate because it's cheaper than Sensodyne. I buy Estee Lauder because it comes with a gift not because of whatever dermatogists' recommendations. I never believe Taco Bell serves me 100% beef. I never believe McDonald's put all chicken meat in McNuggets. I believe Michael sang in Invincible because I hear his voice.

I never have much faith in the so-called credentials that are part of marketing and CYA tools. However, I agree that many people are influenced by the very subjective tests commissioned by the manufacturers.

 

[ivy]

So why did you listen to Soldier Boy? That was stolen as well.

I only listed to it months later it became widely available and not downloading it to my computer

Jason's stop and go is irrelevant.

It's more relevant than you think. People formed myopia in this regard and picking a certain word and matching it to a certain word in Jason's songs as proof. I listened to Jason before - without focusing on specific words or his vibrato. His style was different and that was a dead give away for me. The songs have different singers with differing techniques. that's my position

The way these songs were recorded is different to how his own stuff was recorded.

and how do you know that?

There are multiple, multiple takes on each song. In some cases, he literally sings a line on it's own and it's pasted in. So the issue of his so called stop and go technique plays no part here.

people will also tell you that there are songs that are one take or just the combination of 2 takes. and jason has those stop and go technique between words and not only lines. so it does play a part in my opinion.

 

[Frankyboy5]

Well basically because some of the fans heard the song before and posted lyrics back then or confirmed that the songs are real.

Edit:



LOL

OMG it''s the crazy crotch grab and moonrun!

Note how everyone's still watching him, while when Jason performed at Cleveland, people were leaving! woww...

 

[StellaJackson]

I only listed to it months later it became widely available and not downloading it to my computer



It's more relevant than you think. People formed myopia in this regard and picking a certain word and matching it to a certain word in Jason's songs as proof. I listened to Jason before - without focusing on specific words or his vibrato. His style was different and that was a dead give away for me. The songs have different singers with differing techniques. that's my position



and how do you know that?



people will also tell you that there are songs that are one take or just the combination of 2 takes. and jason has those stop and go technique between words and not only lines. so it does play a part in my opinion.

He doesn't paste lines together in his own songs but they are pasted together in the Cascio tracks. This is confirmed by wave form analysis of the tracks in Pro Tools. Their is a difference of technique yes, but not in the singer, but how his vocals are put together. That's what's throwing you off. I certainly haven't been comparing one word. Everything about Jason's voice is identical to these songs. And you don't need to download Burn 2Nite to hear it. It is available on several streaming sites. It also was widely available, more so than Soldier Boy in fact. You will think differently when you've heard it as have quite a few believers who have now changed their opinion. It's difficult to have a proper debate when you won't listen to the most damning piece of evidence currently available.