Michael - The Great Album Debate

Oh, so they took it from other songs. Well then yes, I'd like to know where are they taken from!

"Unbreakable"

I just don't understand how one can believe Monster is Michael, but can spot the fakes on the ballad type songs. KYHU used to be a tricky one, but today I listen to it, and everything seems so foreign and un-Michael like. I think parts of Stay sound more like Michael than KYHU in it's entirety. Songs like Monster, Soldier Boy, Burn Tonight, and Black Widow, rounding out my obvious bunch, where the voice is so beyond the recognition of Michael Jackson, that I almost find it laughable how any Sony exec thought these songs could pass as Michael Jackson. The rest like All Right, Fall In Love, Ready 2 Win and Water, are just plain bad, in terms of vocals.


What about the lead vocals on Monster, in the slightest bit, remind you of MJ?
 
The Cascio singer (Jason Malachi) is holding on to every note a little longer than Michael would've done. You can hear that very clearly in the up-tempo songs. That makes all songs sound 'whiny' to me. My opinion is that Michael would have sung it more in staccato (if that's the right term), a little more spicier....Mmmm....no, make that a lot more spicier.
 
I need a laugh. Can someone make a comparison to these tracks to MJ?
 
Dear Friends,

I just wanted to encourage everyone who has devoted precious time to debunking the Cascio/Cupeta/Sony fraud. I know that it is taxing on everyone's time to continuously refute them, especially since Sony et al are protected and will likely never admit they either bought frauds or participated in it. As a member who was on the fence for a long time, and who came to doubt it was MJ after the leaking of all the raw tracks, I would like to say that something like this takes time. I am not a hard-core MJ fan, though I've been listening to him off and on for 30 years. There is now no question in my mind that Cupeta is singing on the Cascio tracks, but I'm not sure I would have taken as much interest in this phenomena were it not for devoted fans and critical listeners. I think that if people got together and hired some of their own "best-known forensic musicologists" to listen to Cupeta's published works and the Cascio tracks they would have a conclusion that could be used as a counter-proof to the investigation allegedly conducted by Sony. I think that in time, a year, or two, or three, enough momentum can be created to bring this fraud to light.


Yukon
 
Dear Friends,

I just wanted to encourage everyone who has devoted precious time to debunking the Cascio/Cupeta/Sony fraud. I know that it is taxing on everyone's time to continuously refute them, especially since Sony et al are protected and will likely never admit they either bought frauds or participated in it. As a member who was on the fence for a long time, and who came to doubt it was MJ after the leaking of all the raw tracks, I would like to say that something like this takes time. I am not a hard-core MJ fan, though I've been listening to him off and on for 30 years. There is now no question in my mind that Cupeta is singing on the Cascio tracks, but I'm not sure I would have taken as much interest in this phenomena were it not for devoted fans and critical listeners. I think that if people got together and hired some of their own "best-known forensic musicologists" to listen to Cupeta's published works and the Cascio tracks they would have a conclusion that could be used as a counter-proof to the investigation allegedly conducted by Sony. I think that in time, a year, or two, or three, enough momentum can be created to bring this fraud to light.


Yukon

Here's the problem:

If you ask music forensics "Is it Michael Jackson?", some of them will say it is, end of debate.
If you ask music forensics "Is it Jason Malachi?", some will say it is, but will contradict those who said it was Michael.

In short, they can't help us more unfortunately, unless someone has a physical or tangible trace of proof. But knowing that all traces have been erased, all they can do now is fabricate proofs, like they fabricated the songs.
 
Here's the problem:

If you ask music forensics "Is it Michael Jackson?", some of them will say it is, end of debate.
If you ask music forensics "Is it Jason Malachi?", some will say it is, but will contradict those who said it was Michael.

In short, they can't help us more unfortunately, unless someone has a physical or tangible trace of proof. But knowing that all traces have been erased, all they can do now is fabricate proofs, like they fabricated the songs.

If some musicologists say "it is MJ" and others say "it isn't MJ" one has effectively destroyed the substance of the "proof" advanced by Sony; i.e., one cannot pretend that forensic musicology constitutes objective scientific proof. Obviously we are not talking about a criminal case here. Sony is covered, and as you said, everything is "erased". We are talking about the court of public opinion, and in our day and age, this has become more powerful than official statements issued from multinational corporations. . .
 
If some musicologists say "it is MJ" and others say "it isn't MJ" one has effectively destroyed the substance of the "proof" advanced by Sony; i.e., one cannot pretend that forensic musicology constitutes objective scientific proof. Obviously we are not talking about a criminal case here. Sony is covered, and as you said, everything is "erased". We are talking about the court of public opinion, and in our day and age, this has become more powerful than official statements issued from multinational corporations. . .

According to Ivy, if you ask the question is it Michael Jackson and the answer is yes, it is enough for the court to rule that it is Michael Jackson. Still according to Ivy if you ask is it Jason Malachi, then you are leading the forensics to say that it's someone else, which doesn't constitue a very powerfool tool in court.

However, I don't agree with Ivy that asking if it is Jason Malachi is leading, because we are in a special situation here. It is a twin-brother-like situation vocally speaking, so I don't think that asking if it is JM would be leading. There is more to it than simply leading the forensics. Many people as a matter of fact hear Jason Malachi and not another person at all. So it wouldn't be a random misleading question to ask, which would supposedly aim to say that it is not MJ, but a real issue - is it JM?.
 
Does someone know if the demo snippets we have come from the protools session of August 30th?
I would be curious to hear the last verse of Monster to see if it contains all the pasted words sampled from Invincible. If it doesn't, then Teddy is guilty.. as he began to work on the song on September.
 
Does someone know if the demo snippets we have come from the protools session of August 30th?
I would be curious to hear the last verse of Monster to see if it contains all the pasted words sampled from Invincible. If it doesn't, then Teddy is guilty.. as he began to work on the song on September.

Excellent question. . .
 
According to Ivy, if you ask the question is it Michael Jackson and the answer is yes, it is enough for the court to rule that it is Michael Jackson. Still according to Ivy if you ask is it Jason Malachi, then you are leading the forensics to say that it's someone else, which doesn't constitue a very powerfool tool in court.

However, I don't agree with Ivy that asking if it is Jason Malachi is leading, because we are in a special situation here. It is a twin-brother-like situation vocally speaking, so I don't think that asking if it is JM would be leading. There is more to it than simply leading the forensics. Many people as a matter of fact hear Jason Malachi and not another person at all. So it wouldn't be a random misleading question to ask, which would supposedly aim to say that it is not MJ, but a real issue - is it JM?.

Thank you for the reply Bumper. This just proves my point though. If musicologists can be "leaded" by the simple qiery "Is it Malachi/Cupeta/" this means their "science" lacks the objectivity to be marshaled as a proof for Sony's defense. In point of fact it dismisses musicologists to irrelevancy on this question.
 
A group of mj fans including me, have tried gathering money to hire a forensic, but the amount was just too much.
 
Thank you for the reply Bumper. This just proves my point though. If musicologists can be "leaded" by the simple qiery "Is it Malachi/Cupeta/" this means their "science" lacks the objectivity to be marshaled as a proof for Sony's defense. In point of fact it dismisses musicologists to irrelevancy on this question.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning. Never ever any musicologist's analysis can be considered as proof. So when the Estate published the report I wanted to see the details of the analysis, but they refuse to publish it. They even did not name who were those "best" forensics. I've never heard that there was any kind of competition among musicologists to know who's th ebest in their field. So, their report is a bunch of meaningless words.
 
For the time being, we're stuck until something damning can come into place... Malachi's "confession" on Facebook still raises some questions with me.

OT: Does anyone know of someone who has experience creating music and using Melodyne? I need help with a project. Someone like Nathan Jay (I've already asked him, but he said it would take too long).
 
Another question: how did they sample the scream from Ghost in Monster? It comes from the short film and it has some beatbox in the background. The scream is present in the demo too.
 
@bumper yes they will dare to fabricate proof--or do anything else they have to do . they already dared to put fake tracks on an international official release. i fully believe there's nothing they won't do.
 
Another question: how did they sample the scream from Ghost in Monster? It comes from the short film and it has some beatbox in the background. The scream is present in the demo too.
I heard they just used a generic scream soundfx?
 
Does someone know if the demo snippets we have come from the protools session of August 30th?
I would be curious to hear the last verse of Monster to see if it contains all the pasted words sampled from Invincible. If it doesn't, then Teddy is guilty.. as he began to work on the song on September.

Yes they are from that session.
 
I heard they just used a generic scream soundfx?

Nope, it's from the Ghosts short film. And with all respect, how could anyone think Monster is MJ. Where he sings "tooo baaddddd", what makes you think that's Michael?
 
Nope, it's from the Ghosts short film. And with all respect, how could anyone think Monster is MJ. Where he sings "tooo baaddddd", what makes you think that's Michael?

And the vibrato where he sings, 'Hollywooooood'....
 
Cause he scared! It was immediately obvious to a lot of people when Breaking News premiered.
 
Maybe he is, but if YOUR voice was mistaken for "Michael Jackson's", surely that's cause for celebration, saying "Oh yeah, I'm THAT good!" Why would he hide from that...

Out of curiosity, does ANYONE here have any musical experience in terms of composition? Anyone?
 
I honestly couldn't tell if he was being serious, though. And even then, why would Malachi disappear off the face of the internet because of it?

He was. He also hacked Jasons hotmail account and thieved a bunch of his pictures.
 
Yes they are from that session.
Thank you :)

Could you be more accurate? How do we know that they actually come from this session?
Is the protools session what The Cascio gave to the Estate or what the Estate gave to Sony?
How do you explain that the scream sampled from ghost is present in the demo? Would the Cascio be able to extract the scream whereas there is some beatbox in the background?
 
Thank you :)

Could you be more accurate? How do we know that they actually come from this session?
Is the protools session what The Cascio gave to the Estate or what the Estate gave to Sony?
How do you explain that the scream sampled from ghost is present in the demo? Would the Cascio be able to extract the scream whereas there is some beatbox in the background?

The Estate didn't have anything. That seems to be a common misconception. They were sold directly to Sony. We know they are from the ProTools August 30th session because it's the same stuff that a certain person obtained, which is all from that session. The scream from Ghosts should have been easy for them to obtain. Plus, it's completely drowned out in the album version, meaning Teddy almost certainly didn't go to the trouble of extracting it.
 
Back
Top