Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson feat. 50 cent - MONSTER - its the real deal says 50 -READ!

ivy said:
Did ANYONE said the vocals on Another Day, Blue Gansta, DYKWYCA etc are fake BEFORE they leaked? No. Therefore it's not a comparative example. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

This.
 
AnnieRUOkay89 said:
The fake seed had already been planted by the Jackson's and tabloids, Breaking News was then teased by the Estate, and sent to tabloids like TMZ as a way to disprove the rumors, facts about when and who it was recorded with were being discussed before it released, then it did release, and the questions began. Shortly after the initial release of the song, a list was compiled of all the Cascio songs that would be included on the album. So people were well aware of which songs were from the Cascio's and which weren't. Every Cascio song that has been released since, has been questioned.
Click to expand...

I cant speak for everyone, but I havent seen such a list so I havent known which songs were Cascio's or not.

Breaking News, KYHU, Monster and All I Need are all the songs I have thought were fake.

Carry On, DYKWYCA and Much too soon are the songs I have thought were real.

People are saying Carry On is a cascio track. I am still of the opinion that it is MJ though, based on what I have heard so far.
 
Milka said:
Probably not. With MJ not being with us anymore, SOMEONE would have called the vocals fake, which would have started this mess anyway. That was to be expected actually. Sadly. And even without that happening, I'm sure some people would have been very unhappy with some of the songs because of the production and what was done with the vocals and backing vocals (because they didn't always have a finished or almost finished version to work with). There probably would be a lot of discussion about if certain songs should have been on the album for that reason alone. You can't blame fans for missing Michael and that they are still grieving. Songs with "not enough MJ" in them (and be it just the backing vocals) just show his absence which is still hard to take for people. So it would be "bittersweet" in any case.

And while I'm at it ... just to tell people again where I'm coming from, to me the vocals on all those songs do sound like MJ, all those impersonators like Malachi or MJ Williams are confusing the hell out of me though (just in general, not because I believe 1000 % that it's one of them on the Cascio songs). And then I don't see why Sony would risk a huge lawsuit. Then there is the statement from the estate. "The other side" didn't come up with any kind of evidence (much less proof, but evidence would mean a lot for starters) that made me question the vocals, "gut feeling" and "I have ears" is not enough for me. Do I believe it's possible that they faked those vocals? Yes, because it's POSSIBLE to do that, in theory. I don't claim that my ears can hear the difference between some singer and some other singer that sounds very similar to the first singer, especially not on a new song that I have never heard before. And my ears aren't bad either. So yeah, it's possible that I'm wrong, but then I would be just as wrong as some people who worked with MJ for years, so I'd be in good company. And maybe there will be a lawsuit, there are millions of fans out there, for some money might not be an issue, some have to be lawyers and can probably sue whoever they want for free basically. If that ever happens and it turns out that I was wrong, then I was and that's just proof of me not having dog ears and not being able to perform those audio tests with just my ears and not the right equipment and experience in that field.
Click to expand...

so now we need professional equipment to hear Michael Jackson in the tracks?
i get what you trying to say. you simply go the safe lane and go with all the people that work closely with sony, and think that is the truth. to sony michael jackson is just a moneymaker. and michael broke up with sony long ago. do i need to remind you killer thriller london?
 
The Jacksons, in the past, have also said some less than flattering things about Mike. Why didn't any fans believe it then?

And one point I've mentioned that is being ignored - I didn't even believe the Jacksons had said anything regarding the authenticity of the tracks.

They were tabloid articles, for crying out loud. I figured the whole story was bogus: I thought the tracks were real, and The Jacksons never even said anything. At the time, wasn't it supposedly Katherine and the children? With no quotes or anything? Just second-hand, third-hand, or totally fabricated stories. I barely even remember the rumors because I pretty much only came across them in passing and paid them no mind.

The only thing that has planted doubt in my mind is the way the vocals sound.
 
Milka said:
Oh well, you are unbelievable. First you didn't get my post. Then I explained it again. And now you are still in "attack mode". You are not interested in a moderate discussion. You are just twisting people's words if they don't agree with you. And you've been doing that since this controversy started, I was new and still lurking, it takes a while before you to remember all the usernames, your username was the first one that I remembered for that exact reason.
Click to expand...

:clapping:
 
Giant Enemy Cat said:
The problem is that you're assuming that people are claiming they're fake simply because they're Cascio's, which isn't true.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that, I just said people were aware of what tracks were Cascio's and which weren't, in response to someone saying there was no indication of which tracks were recorded with the family and which weren't. If one "fake" song comes from a source, then anything else released by said source wouldn't be very credible to most people.
 
AnnieRUOkay89 said:
I didn't say that, I just said people were aware of what tracks were Cascio's and which weren't, in response to someone saying there was no indication of which tracks were recorded with the family and which weren't. If one "fake" song comes from a source, then anything else released by said source wouldn't be very credible to most people.
Click to expand...
Oh okay, I get what you're saying, but not everyone saw this list, and I don't think it influenced people as much as you think.

Cascio is welcome to put out another song, I'll judge it objectively like I did with all the others.
 
Giant Enemy Cat said:
It's simple. You can not deny that it is a FACT that MJ sounds very different on the Cascio tracks, which are the only ones being claimed as fake by anyone. You're so quick to throw all this psychology stuff into it, but why is it so far fetched to say it isn't him because it doesn't sound like him?
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that he sounds different. If you go back to my posts you'll see that I classified myself as "torn".

but do we have any other song recorded in a home studio with no professional sound engineer to make a legit comparison? or Perhaps he sounds different because of the recording conditions and that he's not giving his 100%?

and actually I do not base my opinions solely on psychology. Again look to my previous posts that mentions that I worked as an assistant to a pop-rock band in my native country.

A lot of factors aren't examined. For example

- a home studio could be anything ranging from a laptop with software and a microphone attached to a more elaborate setting. Better setting means better quality of recording. Even depending on the equipment and the quality of the engineer you would have different quality recording in different studios. I haven't seen any discussion about the recording setting in the Cascio's home and how it might affect how the vocals sound.

- from my personal experience home studio demo recordings are relaxed instances where the artists try ideas. While I worked with the pop-rock band, I would see them record bits and pieces from songs (almost never a full song) while sitting, smoking, talking, discussing what to do next etc. The idea of such recordings is to lay out the ideas, record them and listen and choose the best to pursue in a studio - not to perfectly record a song.

- and I have never seen a demo/home studio recording being used in an actual release - simply because they are generally not good enough. Furthermore in a studio I have seen the lead vocal recording the vocals several times to get it right or do it any other day if they can't feel the song etc. They don't care about such things when they are just working at their homes. Simply because it's a work in progress not a finished product they are trying to achieve in a demo setting.

In short I'm not also discrediting the fact that he might sound different because of the recording conditions and that he's not giving his 100%.
 
Milka said:
Oh well, you are unbelievable. First you didn't get my post. Then I explained it again. And now you are still in "attack mode". You are not interested in a moderate discussion. You are just twisting people's words if they don't agree with you. And you've been doing that since this controversy started, I was new and still lurking, it takes a while before you to remember all the usernames, your username was the first one that I remembered for that exact reason.
Click to expand...

Well, you've got me completely wrong man. I'm sorry.

I'm not attacking you, i'm just saying that is the way your post came across to me. I apologise if I was wrong....

You've just made it perfectly clear to me though that you have had prior dislike of me before our debate started earlier.

But let me assure you that you have completely mis-judged me. I wasnt trying to twist your words, thats just genuinely how I interpreted your post and I apologise if I was wrong. I'm not sure what your elluding to claiming I have tried to twist people's words in the past either, I would never intentionally do that.
 
Superstition said:
The Jacksons, in the past, have also said some less than flattering things about Mike. Why didn't any fans believe it then?

And one point I've mentioned that is being ignored - I didn't even believe the Jacksons had said anything regarding the authenticity of the tracks.

They were tabloid articles, for crying out loud. I figured the whole story was bogus: I thought the tracks were real, and The Jacksons never even said anything. At the time, wasn't it supposedly Katherine and the children? With no quotes or anything? Just second-hand, third-hand, or totally fabricated stories. I barely even remember the rumors because I pretty much only came across them in passing and paid them no mind.

The only thing that has planted doubt in my mind is the way the vocals sound.
Click to expand...

Ok, you are a big exception. you were not influenced by the Jacksons.

Ok

Who cares?

What you have are just opinions. Nobody has proof but people like you are doing everything to ruin this project. And if the voice is from MJ? Will You pretend that nothing happened? Probably. The legacy is not yours. You can play with the legacy of others without problems.
 
ivy, I see what you're saying, but with all of the other demos we've heard in the past, released and unreleased officially, the vocal is unmistakenly MJ all of the time.

The background music, granted, can vary in quality, which I don't think anyone disputes. However, I just can't fathom how MJ could not sound like MJ because of the quality of the equipment, or because he's not trying 100% - I would've thought that even with the worst equipment and him only trying 10%, he would still sound like MJ. No?
 
ivy said:
I'm not denying that he sounds different. If you go back to my posts you'll see that I classified myself as "torn".

but do we have any other song recorded in a home studio with no professional sound engineer to make a legit comparison? or Perhaps he sounds different because of the recording conditions and that he's not giving his 100%?

and actually I do not base my opinions solely on psychology. Again look to my previous posts that mentions that I worked as an assistant to a pop-rock band in my native country.

A lot of factors aren't examined. For example

- a home studio could be anything ranging from a laptop with software and a microphone attached to a more elaborate setting. Better setting means better quality of recording. Even depending on the equipment and the quality of the engineer you would have different quality recording in different studios. I haven't seen any discussion about the recording setting in the Cascio's home and how it might affect how the vocals sound.

Why not put something else on there, like Blue Gangster? What about On The Line? That was never officially released (as far as I'm aware).
- from my personal experience home studio demo recordings are relaxed instances where the artists try ideas. While I worked with the pop-rock band, I would see them record bits and pieces from songs (almost never a full song) while sitting, smoking, talking, discussing what to do next etc. The idea of such recordings is to lay out the ideas, record them and listen and choose the best to pursue in a studio - not to perfectly record a song.

- and I have never seen a demo/home studio recording being used in an actual release - simply because they are generally not good enough. Furthermore in a studio I have seen the lead vocal recording the vocals several times to get it right or do it any other day if they can't feel the song etc. They don't care about such things when they are just working at their homes.

In short I'm not also discrediting the fact that he might sound different because of the recording conditions and that he's not giving his 100%.
Click to expand...
Okay, but if this is indeed the case (I doubt it, but as I said in an earlier post, it's a possibility) then I still don't see why a completely casual recording that could have possibly been done with something as unprofessional as a laptop and doesn't even sound like him (even though it actually is) is being picked for the posthumous album and completely over produced to cover it up. Why not replace it with another song like Blue Gangster or On The Line?
 
Last edited:
Semih said:
so now we need professional equipment to hear Michael Jackson in the tracks?
Click to expand...

Oh no, not just to hear MJ - it's possible to fake EVERY singer out there, if somebody wants to do that. And if they do it with a good enough impersonator, people won't hear the difference. Even less if the singer is still alive and also says "That's me". If you really want to be 100 % sure, you have to test every single song out there.

Semih said:
i get what you trying to say. you simply go the safe lane and go with all the people that work closely with sony, and think that is the truth. to sony michael jackson is just a moneymaker. and michael broke up with sony long ago. do i need to remind you killer thriller london?
Click to expand...

I don't go the "safe lane". I go the logical lane AND, yes, that's right, my ears also didn't tell me that the vocals are fake. And I also know that you can't always trust your ears (or other senses), see the paragraph above. A lot of people seem to think their ears are infallible though, I don't. That's why I'm saying I could be wrong, no matter how strong my believe is. In case there'll ever be hard facts out there, thanks to a lawsuit maybe, I'd accept that. That's what I was trying to say. A lot of those people who think it's not MJ's vocals go as far as saying "I only believe it's Michael if Michael himself tells me that it is" - they would never accept any kind of proof. I would.

The Sony discussion ... I think we had this discussion yesterday or the day before on here, someone was saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that people are actually still in warrior mode against Sony, they just don't say it most of the time, but hide it behind this controversy and by trying to get people to boycott the album. And also some people seem to think MJ didn't really have a huge problem anymore with Sony after Mottola left. So who is right?
 
L.T.D said:
You've just made it perfectly clear to me though that you have had prior dislike of me before our debate started earlier.
Click to expand...

I never said I dislike you. You are just frozen in your opinion to the point of no return. Like a lot of other people. Just a little bit more than most other people, that's what stood out to me.
 
kopwatcher said:
ivy, I see what you're saying, but with all of the other demos we've heard in the past, released and unreleased officially, the vocal is unmistakenly MJ all of the time.

The background music, granted, can vary in quality, which I don't think anyone disputes. However, I just can't fathom how MJ could not sound like MJ because of the quality of the equipment, or because he's not trying 100% - I would've thought that even with the worst equipment and him only trying 10%, he would still sound like MJ. No?
Click to expand...

but all of the demo's we heard are professional studio recordings done with the likes of Bruce Sweedien and such right? nothing from a unknown home studio with no sound engineer?

Have you ever seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB6znGotWL4 Compare the playback vocals and his actual voice between the song and at the end.

Could it be a case of not trying to hit a high pitch? who knows?

Let me tell you from my own personal experience. The lead singer of the band I worked with is famous for ending the verses with uaaahhhs. He never bothered to do that in demo/home studio recordings and sounded flat (kinda muffled).

Giant Enemy Cat said:
Okay, but if this is indeed the case (I doubt it, but as I said in an earlier post, it's a possibility) then I still don't see why a completely casual recording that could have possibly been done with something as unprofessional as a laptop and doesn't even sound like him (even though it actually is) is being picked for the posthumous album and completely over produced to cover it up. Why not replace it with another song like Blue Gangster or On The Line?
Click to expand...

I actually have a theory for that as well that I wrote in another thread.

Let's assume that there are 35 finished perfect songs at hand such as Blue Gansta or DYKWYCA. And they are going to release 5 albums. So what they decided to do is to divide those good songs amongst the albums (such as 7 each) and fill the rest (3 or 4) with whatever they had in hand.

Now I understand that as fans we all want the best - I do too- but this is a long-term deal people.
 
don't know what to think... some parts really sound like Michael... not sure about the whole song.
 
Milka said:
I never said I dislike you. You are just frozen in your opinion to the point of no return. Like a lot of other people. Just a little bit more than most other people, that's what stood out to me.
Click to expand...

Thats not true either, you've got that COMPLETELY wrong.

If they present me with the proof then i'll believe it.

There are people who dont believe that any of Breaking News or Monster are Michael. I do. I also believe that Carry On is actually Michael, while most people on this side dont.

I think the majority of my posts you have seen are from the first week we heard Breaking News. I've changed my mind on a few things since then, so please dont judge me on what I was saying within that first week.

You know what, never mind. I'll look like a fool sitting here trying to prove my point this way.
 
ivy said:
I actually have a theory for that as well that I wrote in another thread.

Let's assume that there are 35 finished perfect songs at hand such as Blue Gansta or DYKWYCA. And they are going to release 5 albums. So what they decided to do is to divide those good songs amongst the albums (such as 7 each) and fill the rest (3 or 4) with whatever they had in hand.

Now I understand that as fans we all want the best - I do too- but this is a long-term deal people.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking too, but it's a theory that could still be applied if the songs are actually fake.

They want to fill out the albums so they can have some good songs on each one, but either way, these fillers are sub-par and harming his legacy. They could take these 3 "debatable" songs out and still have a decent amount on each album, but not harm is legacy or cause any controversy.
 
ivy said:
but all of the demo's we heard are professional studio recordings done with the likes of Bruce Sweedien and such right? nothing from a unknown home studio with no sound engineer?

Have you ever seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB6znGotWL4 Compare the playback vocals and his actual voice between the song and at the end.

Could it be a case of not trying to hit a high pitch? who knows?

Let me tell you from my own personal experience. The lead singer of the band I worked with is famous for ending the verses with uaaahhhs. He never bothered to do that in demo/home studio recordings and sounded flat (kinda muffled).
Click to expand...

I watched the video - it was all still unmistably MJ. I say that to you without any bias, which I hope you take my word on.

On a similar note, even on songs like 2000 Watts and Shout where his vocals go totally left field, you can still really listen to the voice and tell it's him. The way I judge it is I listen for certain instances in the vocal where I can detect his normal speaking voice. For instance in KYHU there are many opportunites in first verse...it's difficult to explain.

Also, when he's not trying very hard he often slips into a kind of falsetto voice (c.f. Dangerous rehearsals, This Is It rehearsals, etc.)...but on the Cascio tracks, you can hear the vocalist is trying quite hard, at least 80%, especially with all the vibrato that's going on.

I'm willing to entertain the idea it is him...but it just doesn't sound like him to me, and I don't know enough about the effects of pro studio recordings to be convinced otherwise yet.
 
L.T.D said:
Thats not true either, you've got that COMPLETELY wrong.

If they present me with the proof then i'll believe it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you were actually the one saying "I only believe it's Michael if Michael himself tells me that it is" I think on Wednesday after the release of BN. THAT comment stood out to me as well, because it showed that at least some people will never stop to believe in whatever conspiracy they believe in, that's what turned this whole thing a conspiracy theory. People asking for impossible proof.

L.T.D said:
I think the majority of my posts you have seen are from the first week we heard Breaking News. I've changed my mind on a few things since then, so please dont judge me on what I was saying within that first week.
Click to expand...

You've changed your mind on a few things since then? Are you slowly coming to the dark side? ;)
 
MJStorm said:
Ok, you are a big exception. you were not influenced by the Jacksons.

Ok

Who cares?

What you have are just opinions. Nobody has proof but people like you are doing everything to ruin this project. And if the voice is from MJ? Will You pretend that nothing happened? Probably. The legacy is not yours. You can play with the legacy of others without problems.
Click to expand...

I've never stated my opinion as fact.

If the voice is from MJ I'll gladly admit I was wrong. But that won't help me enjoy the material any more.
 
Milka said:
Oh no, not just to hear MJ - it's possible to fake EVERY singer out there, if somebody wants to do that. And if they do it with a good enough impersonator, people won't hear the difference. Even less if the singer is still alive and also says "That's me". If you really want to be 100 % sure, you have to test every single song out there.



I don't go the "safe lane". I go the logical lane AND, yes, that's right, my ears also didn't tell me that the vocals are fake. And I also know that you can't always trust your ears (or other senses), see the paragraph above. A lot of people seem to think their ears are infallible though, I don't. That's why I'm saying I could be wrong, no matter how strong my believe is. In case there'll ever be hard facts out there, thanks to a lawsuit maybe, I'd accept that. That's what I was trying to say. A lot of those people who think it's not MJ's vocals go as far as saying "I only believe it's Michael if Michael himself tells me that it is" - they would never accept any kind of proof. I would.

The Sony discussion ... I think we had this discussion yesterday or the day before on here, someone was saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that people are actually still in warrior mode against Sony, they just don't say it most of the time, but hide it behind this controversy and by trying to get people to boycott the album. And also some people seem to think MJ didn't really have a huge problem anymore with Sony after Mottola left. So who is right?
Click to expand...

do you concur that this track Monster is unique in its own way?
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
I'm not denying that he sounds different. If you go back to my posts you'll see that I classified myself as "torn".

but do we have any other song recorded in a home studio with no professional sound engineer to make a legit comparison? or Perhaps he sounds different because of the recording conditions and that he's not giving his 100%?
Click to expand...

We've heard him singing in a court deposition, on a hand-held camcorder, on telephone conversations, on a clip-on microphone... the vids are all on Youtube.
 
Milka said:
Isn't every song? ;) Depends on what you are implying.
Click to expand...

do you believe Monster is a complete new michael jackson song? with all the elements in it, be it michaels voice, his shouts, and the music and what else not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top