Michael - The Great Album Debate

No, my theory still stands. They didn't do a separate registration of the vocals. That's my point. Cascio/Porte never copyrighted anything as being MJ that isn't. That's why they are covered. It was Sony who would later copy protect the three album songs as songs performed by MJ, but Eddie Cascio never claimed in any of his registrations that the vocals are Michael.

MJ Song Book 2009 #1.

Type of Work: Sound Recording and Music
Registration Number / Date: SRu000911714 / 2009-06-27

Authorship on Application: Michael Joseph Jackson; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS

The above registration clearly credits Michael with sounds and performance on the audio files unless you claim he didn't sing but played the keyboards for example.
 
MJ Song Book 2009 #1.

Type of Work: Sound Recording and Music
Registration Number / Date: SRu000911714 / 2009-06-27

Authorship on Application: Michael Joseph Jackson; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS

The above registration clearly credits Michael with sounds and performance on the audio files unless you claim he didn't sing but played the keyboards for example.

That doesn't state that the lead vocals on the songs are Michael. Firstly, Porte, Cascio and Michael are all credited with performance, but you only used Michael's part as an example, thus taking it out of context. It doesn't break down exactly what they did. For example. someone could have tapped a cymbal once in the background and they could be credited with performance. And secondly, the Malachi vocals simply can't be in that registration. They couldn't have recorded 12 songs in less than 48 hours. What that registration most likely contains is the Porte demos that they had intended for Michael, with Michael's name tacked on for the same involvement as Porte/cascio until they knew what they were going to do with them, which I don't believe for one second involved any kind of fraud at that early stage. So the point still stands. Eddie never claimed that the vocals are Michael's, unless you claim Eddie is singing on them as well.

Michael Joseph Jackson; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS.
James Victor Porte; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS.
Edward Joseph Cascio; Domicile: United States; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: sound recording, performance, production, compilation, LYRICS.
 
Last edited:
lies+run.jpg


We don't know how long this marathon is gonna take, so I thought I'd bring in some refreshments for everyone:

kdX5j.jpg

GYLMv.jpg

8NmXE.jpg

S95oq.jpg
 
bumper you know very well that I stopped discussing authenticity a long long time ago. I have no desire to do so. What annoys me is when people misrepresent facts (such as copyright rules) to make baseless claims (such as conveniently withholding the performer when it's impossible to have a performer in a no performer registration) and present their speculation and/or rumors as facts (the $12 M versus $5 Million).

I think that by this point everyone knows that we're giving opinions as we don't have sufficient info to claim anything as a 100% fact. This goes larger than simply what those registrations contain. Michael Jackson is credited on something that has been registered by Eddie Cascio, but that is failed to be shown as a fact. That is the core problem. How do you know for a fact that MJ participated at all in any of the 12 songs, yet Eddie had to register them. The onus is on him to show it to the public, not on us who don't possess any of the elements except our opinion with which we can only speculate and question such practices.

If you want anyone to take you seriously your theories need to be realistic and factually correct, the minute you start something saying "ooo they conveniently withheld the performer" to the other side you seem to be obsessed and crazy to to point of creating conspiracy when there's none.

And how seriously can one take as granted the official theory according to which it's MJ singing, but which fails to show a single corroborating evidence?

and I hope any of the legal attempts that Stella keep mentioning is not based on these assumptions and/or hearsay.

If anything legal is involved I suppose that the lawyers know their job better than us.


what you fail to understand is that I don't believe either forensics. I clearly explained a million times my belief is based on my hearing and not on any statement or any expert.

What I actually fail to understand is how on Earth you can hear the same voice between the Cascio singer and MJ, and not a single ressemblance with JM's voice despite all the comparison clips that have been posted for this latter and not a single for MJ. I can understand that at times one can hear MJ in those songs because they as a matter of fact are misleading, but saying that they completely and unambiguously sound MJ is something I indeed fail to understand.

what I have been arguing over and over in regards to Estate/Sony experts is that they highly probably exist and analysis is probably done.

Where is their report then? Why keeping it sealed?


I'm basing this opinion on the fact that
1) due diligence requires them to do such an analysis if ever in the future the songs turn out to be fake other wise they'll be facing major problems

Of course they'll do it to cover themselves. They'd do the max to cover themselves and the minimum to publicly communicate anything that could be compromising for them.

2) lying on official statements is also further problematic. It's illogical to think that executors who get 5% each from a billion dollar Estate would lie over fake songs to the fans. (Remember it was a voluntary statement sent out to the fans, they could simply not respond and not mention any expert / test , they didn't have to lie)

We don't know who actually lied. Eddie or SONY/Estate. We don't know what the report says. We don't know what is the error margin. We don't know a single thing. There are things that don't need to be called necessarily "lies" but just unfortunate errors of interpretation. That way their conscious is clear.

Also, with that kind of logic, then people would never question anything and they'd easily get manipulated by the official statements which aim, first of all, to remove the slightest responsibility from the ones who created the mess.

3) other side - Randy Jackson - also confirmed that the analysis is done.

Yet we still have no details, no info whatsoever. No matter who claims what.


you also totally missed the point on the Elvis expert. My point was that you who adamantly argued that forensic experts can be wrong and the tests are more than satisfactory was so quick to accept the Elvis Expert's analysis because his identity was known.

Now quote a single post of mine where I actually said that that forensic was right. I have never ever expressed my opinion on that forensic. I just pointed out how a forensic analysed the tracks and how he wasn't afraid to publicly show his analysis, to give his identity and to inform the public that he even compared the voice with the soundalikes. And yet you immediately jumped to "debunk" his analysis, yet you don't know the identity of the forensics hired by the Estate/SONY.


You totally ignored his credentials and the fact that Elvis Estate had denied the claims. I was simply pointing out your double standard and not making any authenticity claim in regards to Elvis song.

Credentials? Double standard? I am sorry, but the one with double standard claims is you. I've never said whether the Elvis forensic was right or wrong. I just showed it as an example to compare it to the Cascio situation.

So, first of all you know not a single thing about the identity or credentials of the Estate's/Sony's forensics credentials (what if it was the same guy? what would you say then?), yet you don't question their authenticty analysis (which we still haven't seen by the way and you still find it logical not to see it apparently).

Second, I love Elvis Presley, but I am not a fan. I am humble enough to admit that I don't know Elvis's voice as much as his fans. I would be unable to say whether those songs were actually recorded by Elvis or not and I never claimed I supported that forensic's opinion. I simply don't know. So there is no double standard. However, I know MJ's voice enough to voice my opinion and tell that there is something terribly wrong with that voice on the Cascio tracks and that all the lack of info and evidence leads me to believe that they do have things to either hide, cover or even skillfully lie about.

A question so if tomorrow Estate says the analyst was from "John Doe from FBI and these are the methods he used" would you believe it? If not why are acting like this is all about the name of the expert?

I can ask you the same question. What if the Estate tomorrow tells you that the forensic they hired was the same as the one who analysed Elvis's songs? Would you change your mind because of his credentials? Or would you suddenly claim that indeed those songs are sung by Elvis only because the Estate hired the same guy and only because you believe to hear MJ on the Cascio songs?
 
Last edited:
do you remember the forensic expert contacted by max-jax said comparing it with Malachi would be leading and biased.

This is so wrong. Legally yes, it would be biased, but scientifically, the analysis is worthless if it is not compared to the soundalikes. In order to have a strong unambiguous scientific analysis you must eliminate all the doubt. They do the same thing with all medical and any scientific tests and scientific theories. Nothing should mislead you or else your medication you take could be a placebo.

Don't mix up apples and oranges. That Elvis expert is looking for notoriety

Now that's a strong accusatio. How do you know this for a fact? Because the official side told you so?

and he did the analysis on his own.

Yes, with appropriate equipment. So what's wrong with that? He wasn't just pushing the bu''ons.


There's a huge difference between what will hold in court and what won't. I posted years ago that law changed in regards to voice identifications.

And this is the sad part that you seem to support. We, fans, don't care what will hold in court. We are not here to sympathise with the ones who created the mess. They will of course do their maximum to cover their asses and do the strict minimum for the fans who doubt the authenticity.

Plus as we didn't see the reports of the experts there's no way of knowing if they did a "poor job" or not. It's again speculation based on nothing.

YOu accuse the Elvis forensic without proof and fact, except what the official side says, yet you seem to defend the forensic reports that not only you have not seen, but that you don't even known by whom those reports have been made. What if the job was poorly done?


Friedman is a tabloid journalist, he's not always correct. And in this instance he isn't.

And who decides when he's correct. Do you have more sources than him to claim that he isn't correct in that instance?

Plus again if you are believing Friendman's word in this regard, why don't you believe when he says the songs are Michael and when he reports about the Jackson's actions/motives?

Because Roger Friedman is not a witness, but a man who has received info from the ones who claim it is MJ. They also probably gave him the info that they were looking for the highest bidder.


And in your mind the other labels are all idiots then? They are in the music business but don't know the first thing about copyright, rights of publicity, and so on. In reality let me tell you that all labels have legal departments and they'll be all very much aware that they cannot release the songs and hence buying them was worthless.

The smartest move that any company could have done was NOT to buy those songs without any tangible proof that it is MJ singing. Well technically with copy-pastes, yes MJ is "present" on those tracks.
 
Last edited:
OnirMJ;3655305 said:
One more interesting thing from Roger Friedman:

FIRST hand Knowledge

"I know these songs. I heard them in a pre-Michael version in 2006.

What someone else said to him.
They were recorded with his vocals in 2007. Recently, producers have polished them up. They are said to be “amazing.”

http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/11/05/michael-jackson-new-album-five-new-song-titles

Yes his bolded statement was first hand knowledge. ( The rest was what he was told ) He said he himself heard those songs without MJ on them in 2006. If we could hear those versions and how the vocals and music sound on them it would be helpful. I dont remember did they claimed those version were also deleted ?
 
Yes his bolded statement was first hand knowledge. ( The rest was what he was told second hand ) He said he heard the songs without MJ on them in 2006 before any MJ vocals were ever recorded. If we could hear those versions and how the vocals sound on them it would be helpful. I dont remember if they claimed those version were also deleted ?

He didn't hear any such thing. He was just saying what needed to be said in order to support the songs. that was why he was given the exclusive: in exchange for his support and to make us, the fans, want to hear this stuff, hence Sony ultimately buying them. Look at the lengths he went to in order to get Quincy Jones to say it was Michael. It was painful to watch.
 
He didn't hear any such thing. He was just saying what needed to be said in order to support the songs. that was why he was given the exclusive: in exchange for his support and to make us, the fans, want to hear this stuff, hence Sony ultimately buying them. Look at the lengths he went to in order to get Quincy Jones to say it was Michael. It was painful to watch.

So, in your opinion were those songs written and recorded by Porte before Michael even came to their house or not?
 
So, in your opinion were those songs written and recorded by Porte before Michael even came to their house or not?

Yes. Some of them. Soldier Boy most definately. They can be traced back to 2005. In fact, Porte and Cascio registered a bunch of stuff just a few months after Michael stayed (JPEC Collection), but it makes no mention of Michael.
 
Yes. Some of them. Soldier Boy most definately.

Do you think MJ even heard the songs while he was at their home? Do you think MJ wanted to record any of these songs? Do you think he helped writing some songs/lyrics? Do you think MJ recorded any vocals for any of those songs (background vocals, guide vocals, "some words here and there") - of course I'm not talking about lead vocals.

I really want to hear your opinion about these questions. Thanks!
 
Do you think MJ even heard the songs while he was at their home? Do you think MJ wanted to record any of these songs? Do you think he helped writing some songs/lyrics? Do you think MJ recorded any vocals for any of those songs (background vocals, guide vocals, "some words here and there") - of course I'm not talking about lead vocals.

I really want to hear your opinion about these questions. Thanks!

I think Eddie probably played the Porte demos for Michael as he was using the studio for WBSS 2008 and Michael, being as kind as he was, probably told him they were great and he would love to record them. I'm sure he gave him advice also. I doubt Michael would have actually recorded them if he'd lived though. From what I've heard/seen there are no newly recorded MJ vocals anywhere.
 
I think Eddie probably played the Porte demos for Michael as he was using the studio for WBSS 2008 and Michael, being as kind as he was, probably told him they were great and he would love to record them. I'm sure he gave him advice also. I doubt Michael would have actually recorded them if he'd lived though. From what I've heard/seen there are no newly recorded MJ vocals anywhere.

Did he help writing some of them (at least lyrics - Breaking News, Porte for sure didn't sing "I'm Michael Jackson" in the original version) in your opinion? And do you think Cascio & Porte wrote them for Porte album or with Michael Jackson in mind to give him the demos?
 
Mod note
Just reminder to please discuss the topic and not insult each other for the opinions and views you hold. Reports are coming in so if you continue, I will have to delete the comments and replies that are contributing to this, which will also take away some of the points you made - If you find a comment offensive or provoking don't reply report it. PS it would be helpful if those not involved in the ongoing discussions or those not being addressed here to not make reports on others behalf. I'm sure you are just trying to be helpful but let members involved in the discussion decide for themselves what is offensive and what is not. Thanks

Please don't address this mod note to further derail.
Lets Please just respectfully discuss the topic
 
Did he help writing some of them (at least lyrics - Breaking News, Porte for sure didn't sing "I'm Michael Jackson" in the original version) in your opinion? And do you think Cascio & Porte wrote them for Porte album or with Michael Jackson in mind to give him the demos?

I don't know. I think some were originally intended for Porte, like Soldier Boy and some were intended, or maybe rewritten to suit Michael.
 
some small parts


Where is their report then? Why keeping it sealed?

why doesn't Stella tell us the things being done and keep it a secret? Why not Birchey isn't posting his defense strategies on the net?

The answer is simple : You don't show your hand early.

Credentials? Double standard? I am sorry, but the one with double standard claims is you. I've never said whether the Elvis forensic was right or wrong. I just showed it as an example to compare it to the Cascio situation.


and also I compared it to the Cascio situation. Very similar to the Cascio situation one side (Elvis Estate) said the song to be not legit and Elvis fans were arguing whether it's legit or not. I told you then it's quite similar to the Cascio songs situation more than you think. I was confused to see that you previously adamantly argued that vocal authentication is weak at best but in this instance seemed to support the analysis just because his name was available and he wrote a blog about what he did. You didn't see the actual results of the test, you didn't know the certainty percentage or the error rate but suddenly to you it started to look like the perfect analysis because you knew the guys name.

So, first of all you know not a single thing about the identity or credentials of the Estate's/Sony's forensics credentials (what if it was the same guy? what would you say then?), yet you don't question their authenticty analysis (which we still haven't seen by the way and you still find it logical not to see it apparently).

for the last part see the first answer. for the first part I never claimed such analysis to be perfect, I myself posted that it's not a perfect science but improving. My whole point in regards to them has been I believe such analysis has been done and Estate / Sony will be able to produce findings that says it's Michael.


Now that's a strong accusatio. How do you know this for a fact? Because the official side told you so?

because he did the comparison without being asked, with no payment and went to the media to say that it's new Elvis song. To me it is making a name for yourself.

Did you do what I told you way back when we were first discussing it? Did you contact the guy and asked him if he'll do an analysis for you? If he's such a pro-bono work person he'll sure accept it.

And who decides when he's correct. Do you have more sources than him to claim that he isn't correct in that instance?

In some instances you can determine what is right or wrong. For example Friedman claimed a lyrics only registration. It's a fact that a sound recording is a copyright of sounds / performance. Anyone with the ability to read and ability to understand what they read can see it.

Similarly a very basic knowledge or even experiencing the events happened in the latest years - such as Estate not allowing MJ's music to be used in Gest documentary, Estate removing Opis None stream and suing Mann, GLE not being able to use Michael's name , image and not being able to air the tribute concert for a fact shows that other recording companies could not release Michael's songs. This is as plain as a 3 year old can understand.

I'm not claiming I know more or have more sources than him. I'm just saying that in some instances we can say he's wrong. And why are you arguing with me in this regard? Don't think that Friedman was wrong when he so adamantly stated that the songs were Michael? If we can be wrong in that regard, he can be wrong in regard to the copyright registration and sale of the songs. It's as simple as that.
 
What I actually fail to understand is how on Earth you can hear the same voice between the Cascio singer and MJ, and not a single ressemblance with JM's voice despite all the comparison clips that have been posted for this latter and not a single for MJ. I can understand that at times one can hear MJ in those songs because they as a matter of fact are misleading, but saying that they completely and unambiguously sound MJ is something I indeed fail to understand.

That's the whole issue with the believers - they WANT to hear Michael so bad that they just ignore anything that would lead them even slightly the other way. That's why they can't give a decent defense to their position (like giving a comparison where the Cascio voice and a Michael voice sound the same).
 
That's the whole issue with the believers - they WANT to hear Michael so bad that they just ignore anything that would lead them even slightly the other way. That's why they can't give a decent defense to their position (like giving a comparison where the Cascio voice and a Michael voice sound the same).

The comparisons to show similarities between MJ and the Cascio singer can't be done. We know that, and I think the believers know that as well. I do thank the few believers who have made the effort to explain where they hear Michael.

The thing is, for the last 2 years, the attention has continuously been diverted from the actual issue: THE VOCALS. Numerous things have been discussed INSTEAD of discussing the voice. From legal aspects, copy-right registrations, accusing doubters of being conspiracy theorists, ambiguous posts about knowing something that others' don't, everything in between and all the way to insulting fellow MJ fans (and even MJ himself!). And the doubters are the ones who are going around in circles?

I'd rather go around in circles over and over again to bring light to this vocal issue instead of wasting my time discussing things that have nothing to do with the actual vocals - the very thing that needs the most discussion and that very same thing that is avoided by most believers.
 
ivy;3655401 said:
why doesn't Stella tell us the things being done and keep it a secret? Why not Birchey isn't posting his defense strategies on the net?

The answer is simple : You don't show your hand early.

Stella has nothing to do with my argumentation. Birchey is on trial. And your simple answer about showing something early is just a speculation and looks more like some kind of excuse than daring to question them. If the authenticity shows that it is MJ nothing is "early" to show. What a lame excuse not to show the report.

ivy;3655401 said:
and also I compared it to the Cascio situation. Very similar to the Cascio situation one side (Elvis Estate) said the song to be not legit and Elvis fans were arguing whether it's legit or not. I told you then it's quite similar to the Cascio songs situation more than you think.

Wow, what a 180° turn! Let me quote what you said back then:

ivy;3615271 said:
well that article is a lot closer to our situation but not as you think.


ivy;3655401 said:
I was confused to see that you previously adamantly argued that vocal authentication is weak at best but in this instance seemed to support the analysis just because his name was available and he wrote a blog about what he did. You didn't see the actual results of the test, you didn't know the certainty percentage or the error rate but suddenly to you it started to look like the perfect analysis because you knew the guys name.

You obviously believe what fits your arguments. From the very moment I posted that article about the forensic analysis I never ever expressed my support. On the contrary, I clearly affirmed that Elvis's Estate, contrary to MJ's Estate, was at least clever enough not to rely on forensics to hastily release songs allegedly sung by Elvis.

What you fail to see is that it is not us the doubters that share the forensics' opinion, but the other way round. You believers swear by the forensics since the tracks have been released. You actually have no other argument than "forensic analysis" (which you have never seen actually and for which you find thousands of excuses to why they don't release it. Too early?).


ivy;3655401 said:
for the last part see the first answer. for the first part I never claimed such analysis to be perfect, I myself posted that it's not a perfect science but improving. My whole point in regards to them has been I believe such analysis has been done and Estate / Sony will be able to produce findings that says it's Michael.

So it's imperfect, yet you are supporting the idea that they can prove something based on an analysis that you have never seen and that very analysis made by the forensics that you have no idea who they are or what their credentials are. What a twisted argument or simply what an excuse to give them credit without knowing anything. Do you ever question what you read? Or do you put pink glasses on before reading things?


ivy;3655401 said:
because he did the comparison without being asked, with no payment and went to the media to say that it's new Elvis song. To me it is making a name for yourself.

So as soon as someone does something without being asked he or she is a fraud and seeking for attention? Wow. What a strong argument to accuse someone of being dishonest. Can you imagine telling him straight into his face? Judging someone without knowing him, that's what I call double standard on your part. You are advocating for common sense and being rational, but you are being irrational with such an argument. You know nothing about the Estate's forensics and you know nothing about the Elvis's forensic, yet you judge the one and not the other.

ivy;3655401 said:
Did you do what I told you way back when we were first discussing it? Did you contact the guy and asked him if he'll do an analysis for you? If he's such a pro-bono work person he'll sure accept it.

No I didn't do it. I still consider that the onus is not on me but on the Estate/SONY or Eddie to prove that the tracks are MJ's. They released something, they have to support their claims by something rational and not irrational such as unnamed forensics and pictures of an empty studio.


ivy;3655401 said:
In some instances you can determine what is right or wrong. For example Friedman claimed a lyrics only registration. It's a fact that a sound recording is a copyright of sounds / performance. Anyone with the ability to read and ability to understand what they read can see it.

You can determine what is wrong or right, but not in your example. You selectively choose to determine that what Roger Friedman says is right or wrong, when in reality he has his own sources who tell him what to say, contrary to you or me.

ivy;3655401 said:
Similarly a very basic knowledge or even experiencing the events happened in the latest years - such as Estate not allowing MJ's music to be used in Gest documentary, Estate removing Opis None stream and suing Mann, GLE not being able to use Michael's name , image and not being able to air the tribute concert for a fact shows that other recording companies could not release Michael's songs. This is as plain as a 3 year old can understand.

I have never talked about that. So I don't see the similarity between that and what we had been talking about.

ivy;3655401 said:
I'm not claiming I know more or have more sources than him. I'm just saying that in some instances we can say he's wrong. And why are you arguing with me in this regard? Don't think that Friedman was wrong when he so adamantly stated that the songs were Michael? If we can be wrong in that regard, he can be wrong in regard to the copyright registration and sale of the songs. It's as simple as that.

I am not arguing. First of all I don't care what Roger Friedman says. I can only see that he was used as an instrument to write about those Cascio songs. Second, I don't see why he'd be right or wrong based on what we think it is right or wrong. It is obvious that he's writing what the sources tell him to write and because of that it is impossible to claim what is right or wrong unless you have some facts from direct sources that you can show to be true. So if he suggested that the tracks were for sale, obviously he got the info from someone. Claiming that Eddie didn't ask anything is a speculation and a piece of infor that comes from nowhere but your mind.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top