Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

azsummergirl;3471683 said:
i'm really not sure what you're trying to convince me of. that bruce swedien listens to mj as much as hardcore fans? unlikely. that ANYONE listens to mj as much as we do? unlikely--actually? impossible.
Click to expand...

For all you know, Bruce Swedien is a fan as well and has an account here.

why don't u come at me after you've listened to burn 2nite? actually . . . i don't care. kyhu is just as bad, so whatever. enjoy your cd.
Click to expand...

Why are you in the debate thread if you are only interested in a one-sided discussion? This is a debate thread and you are going to hear someone else's opinion whether you like it or not. You make it seem like me and Ivy are the only people "defending" these tracks. There are many other people at MJJC who don't even bother coming to this thread because they think it is a ridiculous claim that these tracks are not Michael.

And why after Ivy replies to everything you have said do you then go the sarcastic route and pass it off as if her opinion is less important and she is definitely wrong? This is a debate thread. Accept it.

de·bate/diˈbāt
Noun: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Verb: Argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner.
 
KingMikeJ;3471758 said:
For all you know, Bruce Swedien is a fan as well and has an account here.



Why are you in the debate thread if you are only interested in a one-sided discussion? This is a debate thread and you are going to hear someone else's opinion whether you like it or not. You make it seem like me and Ivy are the only people "defending" these tracks. There are many other people at MJJC who don't even bother coming to this thread because they think it is a ridiculous claim that these tracks are not Michael.

And why after Ivy replies to everything you have said do you then go the sarcastic route and pass it off as if her opinion is less important and she is definitely wrong? This is a debate thread. Accept it.

de·bate/diˈbāt
Noun: A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Verb: Argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner.
Click to expand...

I have just one question. You believe all Cascio tracks are genuine and Burn Tonight is fake, don't you?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
I have just one question. You believe all Cascio tracks are genuine and Burn Tonight is fake, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe the Cascio tracks are a mix between Michael and someone else to fill in bits and pieces. But with Burn Tonight, I hear a lot of that "someone else".
 
KingMikeJ said:
Yes. I believe the Cascio tracks are a mix between Michael and someone else to fill in bits and pieces. But with Burn Tonight, I hear a lot of that "someone else".
Click to expand...

Yet, you trust the Cascios when they say it is Michael? If Bruce Swedien came and told you that Burn Tonight is Michael, who would you trust, what you hear or what Bruce tells you?
 
What I hear. I'm not asking you to forget about your own opinion and listen to Bruce Swedien.
 
KingMikeJ said:
What I hear. I'm not asking you to forget about your own opinion and listen to Bruce Swedien.
Click to expand...

Ok. And if you hear two voices and not one, aren't you bothered to see them labeled as MJ songs? I mean, to listen to the songs with that second voice without even knowing who that voice is?
 
Yes, I want answers as well. But all of you on the other side (doubters) seem to believe Michael had nothing to do with these songs at all considering you use to make fun of the lyrics and writing all the time.
 
KingMikeJ said:
Yes, I want answers as well. But all of you on the other side (doubters) seem to believe Michael had nothing to do with these songs at all considering you use to make fun of the lyrics and writing all the time.
Click to expand...

No. Not all the doubters.

Having fun is one thing. Having a serious discussion is another.

Regarding lyrics, you are an English speaker, you should know better than I that they are quite weak compared to other MJ songs. But let's agree to disagree on this one and let's get back on voice topic.

Have you ever considered that the parts you hear MJ on those tracks could also belong to a soundalike like JM? Why am I asking you this is simply because in some JM's songs one would swear to hear MJ and not JM.

I don't have time now, but if I had it I'd take JM's snippets where he sounds exactly like MJ and post it.

Regarding my doubts, I also have sometimes impression to hear MJ on some tiny parts in the Cascio songs, but the amount of those snippets where I hear Mike (excluding the copy pastes) is as big as the parts where I have impression to hear him in JM's songs. In other words to me it is not MJ but JM's extremely good imitation.
 
KingMikeJ said:
Yes. I believe the Cascio tracks are a mix between Michael and someone else to fill in bits and pieces. But with Burn Tonight, I hear a lot of that "someone else".
Click to expand...

Im opposite. i think i hear a little more Michael on Burn tonight than others, but yea....there must be someone else too? i think
 
I should have thought it was obvious that it was the same person singing on all of them. And as for Monster being Michael, unbelieveable. The only parts of Monster that are Michael are the parts sampled in which include the "ha" from Unbreakable, the "hoooo" from Ghosts short film and words pasted in from Invincible. I was listening to it the other night and you can actually hear where the cuts come in during the "why you stalking me" line. It goes "why" (from Invincible), cut to "you stalking" (Cupeta) and cut back to "me". The waveform analysis proves this. I don't get how someone can think "tooo baaaaadddd" is Michael Jackson. Every aspect of that line is identical to the vocals of Jason Cupeta. Lets remind ourselves. Listen to Breaking News then listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3OY5NeOCa8
 
KingMikeJ said:
Yes, I want answers as well. But all of you on the other side (doubters) seem to believe Michael had nothing to do with these songs at all considering you use to make fun of the lyrics and writing all the time.
Click to expand...

Like Bumpy stated, not all doubters believe Michael had nothing to do with the songs. It doesn't help to keep generalizing all doubters. More than one time, I've expressed that I'm actually open to the possibility that Michael was minimally involved in the Cascio tracks. I still have doubts nonetheless. For me, fabricating a song from a barely-there demo is not the definition of "authentic" Michael Jackson song. Let's say people find some sketchy outlines drawn by Picasso, then these people comission a group of unknown artists to bring the sketch into completion, and call the finished drawings "final masterpiece" of Picasso. I'm sorry I still can't accept such idea. I find it very disrespectful to the artists. We all know what a perfectionist Michael Jackson was. The Cascio tracks are not what Michael was all about. Does it matter if people hear 65% of Michael in Breaking News or 85% of Michael in KYHU, as far as I know, with today's technology, they can make up a new song with 100% of Michael in it; but, these fabricated songs are not Michael Jackson songs. The advancement in studio editing technology is double-edge sword. I realize the limitations of posthumous releases. I know the genius is not here to give his final magical touch. But, the producers need to know where the boundary is. If the demos are not usable without major alternations (speed up, copy and paste, fill in the gap, etc.), then leave them in the vault or release them as-of.

Fans agree that the Cardiff concert tribute is everything opposite of what Michael Jackson was about, these Cascio tracks are not what Michael Jackson was about neither.

As for making fun of the lyrics, let's face it, the lyrics of the Cascio tracks are weak. Muscial taste is subjective. So, if you think Monster features Michael's best vocal performance - fine. But, lyrically, Stay, Soldier Boy and Burn Tonight are mediocre at best. If you think the lyrics of those songs are good, then I'd like to hear your interpretations of those lyrics. I love hearing different peopel's interpretations. May be I have missed something and I always learn from others.
 
Am catching up here... This thread is moving so fast since yesterday.

Regarding the conclusion of "expert (bruce swedien) > fans", I don't think we have enough information to arrive at such conclusion in this case. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, it's just that I don't have enough information to reach such conclusion.

First, I don't know what materials were provided to Bruce Swedien for him to give his opinions. Did the Estate provide him just the three songs on Michael, or all 12 Cascio tracks? Did the Estate provide him the finished version or the raw vocals?

Second, how many times did Mr. Swedien listen to the Cascio tracks before being asked to give his opinion? Once, twice, 10 times? Did he analyze the songs in parts?

Third, was Mr. Swedien aware of other people's opinions before giving his? In other words, was he led to give a consent? "Leading" is a term we used quite a lot here. If fans could be led to believe the songs are fake, Mr. Swedien could be led to believe the songs are authentic. Was there any dissenting voice in the penel of producers asked to authenticate the songs by the Estate?

In all fairness, Mr. Swedien could have listened, dissected and analyzed the songs like Pentum and TPI Master did. But, do we really know? Before we jump to a conclusion that Mr. Swedien's opinion is more reliable than fans' opinions, should we at least ask how Mr. Swedien arrive at his conclusion? In real life, we don't simply trust an expert's words without questioning. I don't just follow my doctor's advice without asking for detailed explanation.
 
And let's not forget, that with the upmost respect to Bruce Swedien, for him to have said the songs weren't Michael would have probably got him blacklisted from future projects.
 
Did the Estate get an unanimous confirmation from all the producers/Michael's former collaborators they asked to evaluate the Cascio tracks? I don't remember seeing it from the Estate's statement. I could be wrong. I am not able to look up the statement now, as MJJC is painfully slow here at work. Quincy Jones, another expert, said he couldn't tell because the vocals are too stacked. Did Bruce feel the same way as Quincy originally? Did he ask for further materials/support to be provided to him? Did he have any reservation?

I guess I'm sounding very skeptical here. But, time and time again, I've learned not to place absolute trust to authorities, to big corporations, to the media, to the "experts" etc. We live in a deceiving world unfortunately. Unless further explanation is given to us (I know the Estate has no obligation to do such), I will always have doubts. There doesn't seem to be any closure in this matter. Oh well... life is not perfect.
 
Last edited:
love is magical said:
Am catching up here... This thread is moving so fast since yesterday.

Regarding the conclusion of "expert (bruce swedien) > fans", I don't think we have enough information to arrive at such conclusion in this case. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, it's just that I don't have enough information to reach such conclusion.

First, I don't know what materials were provided to Bruce Swedien for him to give his opinions. Did the Estate provide him just the three songs on Michael, or all 12 Cascio tracks? Did the Estate provide him the finished version or the raw vocals?

Second, how many times did Mr. Swedien listen to the Cascio tracks before being asked to give his opinion? Once, twice, 10 times? Did he analyze the songs in parts?

Third, was Mr. Swedien aware of other people's opinions before giving his? In other words, was he led to give a consent? "Leading" is a term we used quite a lot here. If fans could be led to believe the songs are fake, Mr. Swedien could be led to believe the songs are authentic. Was there any dissenting voice in the penel of producers asked to authenticate the songs by the Estate?

In all fairness, Mr. Swedien could have listened, dissected and analyzed the songs like Pentum and TPI Master did. But, do we really know? Before we jump to a conclusion that Mr. Swedien's opinion is more reliable than fans' opinions, should we at least ask how Mr. Swedien arrive at his conclusion? In real life, we don't simply trust an expert's words without questioning. I don't just follow my doctor's advice without asking for detailed explanation.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I'll give a very concrete example. I am not a doctor of medicine, thus I am not qualified to give any kind of diagnosis on patients. However, one day my 4 year old son woke up with red spots on his face and a rash that was getting worse every minute that day. At first I thought he had measles. So I went on Internet and did a research in order to be sure it was not something else.

So among all plausible infos I found out three possibilities: measles, roseola or mononucleosis.
Given the fact that my son had been vaccinated against measles and roseola I thought there is a very slim chance it could be that. Parallelly I was extremely tired those days, had naps all the time and red eyes. So I concluded, it can't be anything else but mononucleosis as all the symptoms and signs I read about children and adults matched ours respective states.

I went to the clinic to the paediatrist who was specialized in allergology. That day by coincidence a bunch of specialists were in the office and my 4-year old was a bit impressed and worried so he started to cry. During that time none of the specialists could agree on the diagnosis among the above cited three possibilities. At the same time nobody was listening to me when I was describing his and my symptomps. They all knew better. They are doctors.

At one point, the chief doctor in allergology and prominent professor at the university came and said (and to all his word was gospel) that my son had roseola because he was coughing a bit. I tried to explain that my son wasn't coughing at all at home and that the only reason why he was coughing there, was because he was sobbing and crying (I know my son better than a doctor who never saw him before). But talking to a tomb or to the specialists doesn't make much difference. They're never wrong and even if they are they never admit it.

So I went to another specialist who did the blood sample analysis and confirmed as I thought, we both had mononucleosis. My son did not have roseola. The same specialist ho did the blood sample told me that nobody dares to contradict the professor's diagnosis and that that professor never admits when he's wrong.
 
^^When I was about 6 years old, I got chickenpox and when I got over that, I was still sick for a while after, enough that my parents got a little worried...so they took me to the doctor and they did some tests and found out that my spleen was enlarged among other symptoms that alarmed the doctors thinking I had leukemia....So they told my parents this, but my parents wanted a second opinion....so they saw another doctor and it turned out I didn't have leukemia, but what had happened was the varicella (chickenpox) virus attacked my bone marrow and that's why they thought I had leukemia, the symptoms were the same!......So, yeah, it's always good to make sure you get a thorough and correct explanation and then possibly a second opinion, just in case lol...Kinda scary stuff...
 
^^There are many other real-life samples that show the experts are wrong and their opinons are not more reliable. A few years ago, several junior analysts at Standard & Poors' voiced out their concerns about the credibilities of many mortgage-backed securities. However, their opinons were overruled by the department heads (the more seasoned and knowledgeable experts) at S&P. Mortgage-backed securities defaults were the major cause of the financial crisis in 2008. As a matter of fact, one of the largest investment banks in the world, Lehman Brothers, collapsed because of the bank's bets in such high risk securities. The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation on S&P's practice at the moment.

In 2002, one of the largest energy trading companies in the U.S, Enron, collapsed. Just a few days before the company's bankruptcy, Enron still had a "AAA" rating from S&P. Enorn received an "unqualified opinon" from its auditors, Arthur Andersen. Arthur Andersen, one of the most reputable accounting and professional services firm, went out of business afterward.

S&P - one of the most trusted rating agencies in the world - was wrong.

Arthur Andersen - one of the most highly regarding accounting firms in the world - was wrong.

The experts who were all very well respected in their fields were wrong.

So, without understanding the complete cirucumstance, one simply cannot conclude that experts' opinions are more reliable. Have we considered the following?

1. Are the experts independent?

2. Are the experts pressured to give a certain opinion?

3. Is there any monetary or other incentives?

I'm not asking people to discredit experts' opinions. But, it's important to know how the experts come up with the opinions.
 
StellaJackson said:
I should have thought it was obvious that it was the same person singing on all of them. And as for Monster being Michael, unbelieveable. The only parts of Monster that are Michael are the parts sampled in which include the "ha" from Unbreakable, the "hoooo" from Ghosts short film and words pasted in from Invincible. I was listening to it the other night and you can actually hear where the cuts come in during the "why you stalking me" line. It goes "why" (from Invincible), cut to "you stalking" (Cupeta) and cut back to "me". The waveform analysis proves this. I don't get how someone can think "tooo baaaaadddd" is Michael Jackson. Every aspect of that line is identical to the vocals of Jason Cupeta. Lets remind ourselves. Listen to Breaking News then listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3OY5NeOCa8
Click to expand...

ew :(
 
love is magical said:
^^There are many other real-life samples that show the experts are wrong and their opinons are not more reliable. A few years ago, several junior analysts at Standard & Poors' voiced out their concerns about the credibilities of many mortgage-backed securities. However, their opinons were overruled by the department heads (the more seasoned and knowledgeable experts) at S&P. Mortgage-backed securities defaults were the major cause of the financial crisis in 2008. As a matter of fact, one of the largest investment banks in the world, Lehman Brothers, collapsed because of the bank's bets in such high risk securities. The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation on S&P's practice at the moment.

In 2002, one of the largest energy trading companies in the U.S, Enron, collapsed. Just a few days before the company's bankruptcy, Enron still had a "AAA" rating from S&P. Enorn received an "unqualified opinon" from its auditors, Arthur Andersen. Arthur Andersen, one of the most reputable accounting and professional services firm, went out of business afterward.

S&P - one of the most trusted rating agencies in the world - was wrong.

Arthur Andersen - one of the most highly regarding accounting firms in the world - was wrong.

The experts who were all very well respected in their fields were wrong.

So, without understanding the complete cirucumstance, one simply cannot conclude that experts' opinions are more reliable. Have we considered the following?

1. Are the experts independent?

2. Are the experts pressured to give a certain opinion?

3. Is there any monetary or other incentives?

I'm not asking people to discredit experts' opinions. But, it's important to know how the experts come up with the opinions.
Click to expand...

Another example is evolutionist theory taught at school vs creationist theory. Who's right? Who's wrong?

In the Cascio case any expert who would contradict the present official statement need proofs. The tricky thing is that the Cascio don't have a single trace of them. So how can you prove anything with credibility if no single trace is available except what we hear on those tracks.

I talked to a professional music teacher and singer. She told me if the responsibles do not confess or tell what really happened to the strange voice we hear, THERE IS NO WAY to prove anything. IMPOSSIBLE.
 
^^Speaking of Arthur Andersen (people in financial/accounting field would know how well regarded Arthur Andersen was), it still puzzles me why the partner-in-charge of the Enron audit and the firm's Houston office would take such great risk. For an accounting firm, reputation is its biggest asset. The dissolution of Arthur Andersen can be attributed mostly to the loss of clients' confidence. Company wants to get an audit (seal of approval of its financial statements) from a reputable accounting firm. The shutdown of Arthur Andersen happened before the firm was found guilty of any wrongdoings (actually the ruling against AA was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court). It's a textbook example of how an accounting firm has to safeguard its reputation.

Many people said that Sony, one of the biggest music corporations, would not take any risk to harm its reputation. Think again! Time and time again, the unthinkable happens.
 
lucilla said:
I've just had my lunch man :(
Click to expand...

Here's a present for you :D

Jason%20malachi%202.jpg
big
ShowImage.aspx
45814055.jpg
689-7.jpeg




Jason-_Malachi-11-10-10.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top