Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Worldwide]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Monster.mp3

First the DIY acapella clip (coudn't remove all beat) then diy pella on the thriller beat

Sounds like MJ to me

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I don't wanna go to far down this road, but their opinion means absolutly nothing, unless it's said to you in front of your face with no 3rd party intervention. The fact it's released through an official statement, who knows what they really said.

again the point wasn't about who said what and how credible they are. it was a discussion about "bias". I didn't say "accept their opinions as correct" , I said "a non-biased person would accept the possibility that the alternative opinion might be right".

again think of a DNA test that says %99.97 or a scientific test that would have %95 percent certainty - all of those objective tests will leave room for error / mistake. and that was my point - you really cannot talk about objectivity (non bias) unless you leave a room for you being wrong.

It's interesting how whether one feels it is Michael or not, that the vast majority of fans are in agreement of this (Including me ). In the estates statement, they say how our opinions matter...yeah right, if it mattered these songs would definitely not be on the album. This is the result of a small group of people (Sony/Estae) deciding something important for a large group of people (the customers/fans) without completely taking serious our feelings and thoughts.

and why wouldn't we agree? I really do not think that anyone could say that this controversy was worth it and they benefited from it. It could have been much better to just avoid it all together rather than putting people into a continuous debate.

Supporting vocal is legit if the supporting vocals compliment the lead vocals not overwhelm the lead vocals.

There are parts of songs that NEED to be sung by Michael in order to be a Michael Jackson song. The line "I'm starting with the man in the mirror" has to be sung by Michael. The line "Bille Jean is not my lover" has to be sung by Michael. You know what I mean? You can't call a song a Michael Jackson song if he's only featured in a small portion of the song. Is there any song, not just Michael Jaskon's song, but any artist's song, that forces us to look into the song credit to find out who the vocalists are?

The fact that almost everyone, doubters and non-doubters, cannot hear Michael in parts that are supposed to be sung by Michael is alarming. It's really ridiculous.

If I was making decisions, I would DEFINITELY NOT include those songs in the album not because of controversy, but becasue of respect. Michael Jackson deserves more respect.

question : would it be more okay if they labeled the song as "duet".

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

yes.

So you 'investigated' further with the bias that it IS Michael Jackson.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

So you 'investigated' further with the bias that it IS Michael Jackson.

I did say that "WE ALL" are biased - that would include me as well as you- and that none of us would make good experts due to our heavy bias and emotional involvement.

again I have to ask which part of "we all" wasn't understood? I'm not claiming to be better than anybody here, all I'm saying is that none of us is neutral and without bias.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I did say that "WE ALL" are biased - that would include me as well as you- and that none of us would make good experts due to our bias and emotional involvement right.

again I have to ask which part of "we all" wasn't understood? I'm not claiming to be better than anybody here, all I'm saying is that none of us is neutral and without bias.

The part where you don't speak for me. How about that one?

You're biased. By your own admission. I'm not. It doesn't sound like Michael Jackson to me. That's not 'bias'. That's my opinion.

 

[Graf]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

and why wouldn't we agree? I really do not think that anyone could say that this controversy was worth it and they benefited from it. It could have been much better to just avoid it all together rather than putting people into a continuous debate.

Well I mention it because I've actually seen some posters say that they are glad/happy that they included the Cascio tracks and they should completely ignore people who have concerns over the validity...Which I really cannot comprehend on why anyone want a continuous debate/division?..And...yeah exactly it could have easily been avoided if they just left them off..Honestly,Sony/Estate insisting that they be on the album just makes me wonder what they were thinking when they decided to include them..Was it about being clueless about the reaction (doubt that) or having some sort of specific motivation?

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The part where you don't speak for me. How about that one?

You're biased. By your own admission. I'm not. It doesn't sound like Michael Jackson to me. That's not 'bias'. That's my opinion.

that's your biased opinion.

Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective.

Like it or hate it - as you cannot even acknowledge other perspectives you are biased. As you cannot be bothered to logically and impartially evaluate them and reject them as "excuses" you are biased. Like it or hate it as you can with no proof can call some parties names you are prejudiced (how about innocent until proven guilty).

Ps: I told you before if you had an open mind and acknowledged some stuff your points would be received better. Acting "all and mighty that can't be wrong" doesn't do you any favors.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Well I mention it because I've actually seen some posters say that they are glad/happy that they included the Cascio tracks and they should completely ignore people who have concerns over the validity...Which I really cannot comprehend on why anyone want a continuous debate/division?..And...yeah exactly it could have easily been avoided if they just left them off..Honestly,Sony/Estate insisting that they be on the album just makes me wonder what they were thinking when they decided to include them..

I hear you and understand where you are coming from. I have seen some posters saying the Cascio tracks are Michael's strongest works in ages too. :bugeyed

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

that's your biased opinion.

Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.. In other words, bias is generally seen as a 'one-sided' perspective.

Like it or hate it - as you cannot even acknowledge other perspectives you are biased. As you cannot be bothered to logically and impartially evaluate them and reject them as "excuses" you are biased. Like it or hate it as you can with no proof can call some parties names you are prejudiced.

Complete and utter nonsense.

You're biased. By your own admission. Speak for yourself. And yourself only.

We're not discussing variables here. We're discussing a black or white issue. And the vocalist on the Cascio songs sounds absolutely nothing like Michael Jackson to me. That's not my 'biased' opinion. That's my opinion.

Your opinion is dependent on a million different coincidences occurring, resulting in the vocalist on the Cascio songs sounding exactly like Jason Malachi, but, still, somehow being Michael Jackson.

I'm being shown a black piece of paper and being told it's a white piece of paper. My opinion that it's a black piece of paper isn't biased. It's absolutely correct.

That's the level of discrepancy between these bogus vocals and the vocals of the masterful Michael Jackson.

This is an issue where there is a right or wrong. There's no shades of grey here. And in my opinion the vocalist is not Michael Jackson.

You can continue to support your belief with the seller's assertions. I'll continue to have faith in my hearing abilities.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

question : would it be more okay if they labeled the song as "duet".

are those songs meant to be duets?

those songs may simply be very rough demos michael might not put too much thought into them. isn't labeling the demos duets another way to sell the songs as michael jackson songs?

 

[kopwatcher]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

With all due respect, this bias issue is complete nonsense.

1) I am a Michael Jackson fanatic
2) I love hearing new Michael Jackson songs
3) I want any potential new MJ song to be real
4) I have nothing to gain from a song which isn't MJ
5) I have a new song to gain from a song which is MJ!

Therefore I should have a natural bias to believe any new MJ song as MJ.

How's that for logic 101?

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

@samhabib - then I'll say the problem is you presenting your opinion as a fact.

are those songs meant to be duets?

those songs may simply be very rough demos michael might not put too much thought into them. isn't labeling the demos duets another way to sell the songs as michael jackson songs?

as far as I understood your point was additional vocals (porte let's say) also singing the lead vocal parts right? that's why I asked if they were labeled as duets "Michael and Porte" would it make it okay? if they said "50% is Michael" and rest is other people? and wouldn't it be a MJ song if he had 50% or more but not 100%?

With all due respect, this bias issue is complete nonsense.

1) I am a Michael Jackson fanatic
2) I love hearing new Michael Jackson songs
3) I want any potential new MJ song to be real
4) I have nothing to gain from a song which isn't MJ
5) I have a new song to gain from a song which is MJ!

Therefore I should have a natural bias to believe any new MJ song as MJ.

How's that for logic 101?

how about your bias towards other parties involved? In business classes I always mention "we don't operate in a bubble , there are many factors outside". What if for example your bias of record companies being profit oriented was bigger than your bias for trusting the vocals?

 

[kopwatcher]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

how about your bias towards other parties involved? In business classes I always mention "we don't operate in a bubble , there are many factors outside". What if for example your bias of record companies being profit oriented was bigger than your bias for trusting the vocals?

Well you'll have to take my word on this:

1) I don't give a crap about record companies
2) I don't give a crap what the family say
3) I don't give a crap what other fans say

All of the above is completely, COMPLETELY irrelevant to me. My ears, and the rest of my senses determine my reality. My ears overrule everything. Everything.

You take all of that out of the equation, then any bias I might have is towards believing the songs are real.

...and please don't even try telling me I've been influenced in other ways.

 

[Alec]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The only line in all 5 Cascio songs we've heard so far that sounds like Michael Jackson to me is the backgoround vocals for "she was my baby" in Stay, at 2:15.

The other 30 minutes of "Michael Jackson vocals" (except WBSS 2008) recorded by Angelikson sound so unlike the KOP that I just can not believe it is him. I might change my mind if Eddie or Frank Cascio come out of hiding and answer my questions. After all, if the songs are real, I can't see why wouldn't they want to be honest and (like Jason Malachi says) clear up all the doubt

Eddie, if you're reading this - PM me. I'll call you at my own expense. I'll buy you best dinner you've ever had. Just explain what the **** is wrong with your friend's voice on the songs.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

@samhabib - then I'll say the problem is you presenting your opinion as a fact.

Scramble around trying to find my 'problem' all you want. It's called conviction. Which you lack. Which speaks volumes.

As soon as I heard the Arvizo's timeline I knew Michael Jackson was innocent of their bullshit allegations. Biased? Or possessed of enough information to form an educated opinion?

I've heard every song Michael Jackson ever recorded and released. I think it's fair to say my opinion is educated on the subject. And no piece of paper provided by the seller's will influence me. If it influences you, you have to ask yourself why that is.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

as far as I understood your point was additional vocals (porte let's say) also singing the lead vocal parts right? that's why I asked if they were labeled as duets "Michael and Porte" would it make it okay? if they said "50% is Michael" and rest is other people? and wouldn't it be a MJ song if he had 50% or more but not 100%?

The question is not the addtional/supporting/background vocalists also sing the lead, the problem is the additional/supporting/background vocalists sing a significant portion of the lead is such a style to be as close to Michael Jackson as possible, so that the song can be called a Michael Jackson song.

Take Just Good Friends for an example, Stevie Wonder didn't pretend to be Michael. Michael didn't pretend to be Stevie. The song, in its nature, is a duet.

Let's say they called Breaking News a duet of Michael and others. Isn't it also deceitful? I don't want to make it sound like a sports. I don't need a statistic analyst using a stop-watch to count every second Michael was in and state the percentage of Michael's invovlement.

Music is about feeling. The listener can feel it. Like I said earlier, there are portions of the songs that NEED to be sung by Michael.

how about your bias towards other parties involved? In business classes I always mention "we don't operate in a bubble , there are many factors outside". What if for example your bias of record companies being profit oriented was bigger than your bias for trusting the vocals?

As a Michael Jackson fan, I'm biased towards in believing all new Michael Jackson release to be authentic and good because that would give me the biggest satisfaction. My desire to get new Michael Jackson albums is much stronger than my disgust in profit oriented record label; hence, I bought all the greatest hit collections and This Is It the album and Michael.

If anything, my doubts on the authenticity of the tracks seem to go against my bias.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The only line in all 5 Cascio songs we've heard so far that sounds like Michael Jackson to me is the backgoround vocals for "she was my baby" in Stay, at 2:15.

The other 30 minutes of "Michael Jackson vocals" (except WBSS 2008) recorded by Angelikson sound so unlike the KOP that I just can not believe it is him. I might change my mind if Eddie or Frank Cascio come out of hiding and answer my questions. After all, if the songs are real, I can't see why wouldn't they want to be honest and (like Jason Malachi says) clear up all the doubt

Eddie, if you're reading this - PM me. I'll call you at my own expense. I'll buy you best dinner you've ever had. Just explain what the **** is wrong with your friend's voice on the songs.

Lol... I'll chip in. Eddie, I'll buy you the best desserts in town after dinner.

 

[kopwatcher]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

If anything, my doubts on the authenticity of the tracks seem to go against my bias.

It also goes against all logic. As Ivy has pointed out so many times, why would Sony risk this? For this to work, it would involve many people conspiring with each other. It sounds far-fetched and so illogical - and yet here we are.

So, no, if anything, we should be biased towards believing the tracks are authentic.

Next excuse.

 

[MJultimatemusiclegen]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

It also goes against all logic. As Ivy has pointed out so many times, why would Sony risk this? For this to work, it would involve many people conspiring with each other. It sounds far-fetched and so illogical - and yet here we are.

So, no, if anything, we should be biased towards believing the tracks are authentic.

Next excuse.

Because Sony is the biggest entertainment company in the world, has a huge market monopoly and massive shares in all it's rivals. To get to that position it took risks, it fooled people, it conned people and it had zero morals. It can get away with it. Michael Jackson wasn't interested in radio friendly music in his last years, his new songs were constantly innovative, see xscape etc, but sony wanted radio friendly songs like todays music industry, thats most probably why they rejected the 2007 tracks he offered them. The music was probably all like that in the vault from his latter years, notice the cascio songs are the most radio friendly songs on the album, bar hold my hand, notice it's that formulaic pop that MJ had mostly left behind, bar perhaps one more chance and hold my hand which i see as a favour to akon. They wanted songs like this, but MJ left non, so they organised this scrapy little project. You can shut anyone up involved in it with Money and Blackmail. Riley seemed seriously stressed when the storm took off, something tells me he knows it's not MJ because he'd just laugh at the accusations if it was.

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Honestly, Xscape or Escape sounds very "formulaic pop" and Michael never seemed to want to stray far away from that pop sound.

For a while he definitely wanted to be the best at it, but I think in his later life he probably became more and more humble with himself.

You just assume that he offered Sony bad songs... Maybe Sony just knew it'd be best to leave them unreleased til he died?

Who knows? But there are a lot of assumptions in your post it seems... "You can shut up anyone involved in it with Money and Blackmail"?

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I really don't think Michael was trying to distance himself from "formulaic pop" as he always said, good music is good music.

 

[MJultimatemusiclegen]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Honestly, Xscape or Escape sounds very "formulaic pop" and Michael never seemed to want to stray far away from that pop sound.

For a while he definitely wanted to be the best at it, but I think in his later life he probably became more and more humble with himself.

You just assume that he offered Sony bad songs... Maybe Sony just knew it'd be best to leave them unreleased til he died?

Who knows? But there are a lot of assumptions in your post it seems... "You can shut up anyone involved in it with Money and Blackmail"?

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I really don't think Michael was trying to distance himself from "formulaic pop" as he always said, good music is good music.

I wouldn't call MJ's later work formulaic, i'd call it Edgy and experimental with very unusual production. I'd call songs that top the charts today formulaic pop, the very type of songs sony wanted from him. I know it has a lot of assumptions, but it's how i see it. I'm just trying to say that everyone has there own opinions on the subject. And we've chose our sides, and everyone is firmly stuck to them. It'l be like this forever more, until some fresh evidence or light comes on the subject, which may be never.

 

[MJRemixed]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

The only theory that shatters my "fake vocals" belief is wondering what songs they registered, the day after Michael died.

If it was in fact an impersonator, how the heck did he record all 12 songs in one day for them to register the next day?

The only other option would be that they registered true Michael "song titles" then hired an impersonator to take the song title and come up with lyrics and such.

This is what I believe.
Either the songs were partially created before Mj's death and sung by JM AFTER mj's death.

OR

The songs were fully written before Mj died, but MJ never recorded them AT ALL, but still they registered them cus' they say $$$, then hired JM for the vocals.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Scramble around trying to find my 'problem' all you want. It's called conviction. Which you lack. Which speaks volumes.

I do have conviction however I'm also humble. I just don't go around and say "I'm right and you are all wrong" or belittle people by naming their posts "excuses or nonsense" or comment about their hearing or act like I'm perfect without error. I think I'm a bigger person for acknowledging "they have a valid point", they raise "interesting points" and what they argue is "possibility" even though I strongly disagree with their opinions. I'm in a place in my life that I can say "I don't agree with you but I respect you" and mean it.

The question is not the addtional/supporting/background vocalists also sing the lead, the problem is the additional/supporting/background vocalists sing a significant portion of the lead is such a style to be as close to Michael Jackson as possible, so that the song can be called a Michael Jackson song.

well Porte doesn't sound like Michael and I don't think that he's trying to sound like Michael.

Let's say they called Breaking News a duet of Michael and others. Isn't it also deceitful? I don't want to make it sound like a sports. I don't need a statistic analyst using a stop-watch to count every second Michael was in and state the percentage of Michael's invovlement.

Music is about feeling. The listener can feel it. Like I said earlier, there are portions of the songs that NEED to be sung by Michael.

see below

As a Michael Jackson fan, I'm biased towards in believing all new Michael Jackson release to be authentic and good because that would give me the biggest satisfaction. My desire to get new Michael Jackson albums is much stronger than my disgust in profit oriented record label; hence, I bought all the greatest hit collections and This Is It the album and Michael.

If anything, my doubts on the authenticity of the tracks seem to go against my bias.

just read what you wrote above quote- you have a bias about a song not being 100% Michael. Technically speaking 51% means lead vocals, almost equal distribution of vocals (around 50%) means duet, less than 50% means "featuring", however you do not consider such as "MJ songs" as it doesn't satisfy your requirements.

Assume this was a lawsuit (won't be a perfect example) and the judge said "if the vocals account to 51% you must conclude that he sang the lead". Now you might believe a lead vocal needs to be 80-90% - and that's fine. However a non biased determination would require putting your personal belief aside and comparing it to 51%.

again this is not about counting percentages and showing one side to be correct or not. My point is solely based on bias. Even though samhabib liked to deny the human nature - all of us are biased in every subject due to our beliefs and personal experiences. But the question is can we put our bias aside? For example in law a jury isn't a group of non-biased people , it's a group of people that can put their bias, beliefs, opinions aside and can decide based on a written set of rules and directions.

 

[MJRemixed]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

@worldwide, even in that DIY acapella of Monster the vocals sound pasted together as in the BN acapella.

To me the words "walls" and "fall" sound like they are sung separately and then merged with the existing words to "form" a sentence.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

just read what you wrote above quote- you have a bias about a song not being 100% Michael. Technically speaking 51% means lead vocals, almost equal distribution of vocals (around 50%) means duet, less than 50% means "featuring", however you do not consider such as "MJ songs" as it doesn't satisfy your requirements.

Assume this was a lawsuit (won't be a perfect example) and the judge said "if the vocals account to 51% you must conclude that he sang the lead". Now you might believe a lead vocal needs to be 80-90% - and that's fine. However a non biased determination would require putting your personal belief aside and comparing it to 51%.

again this is not about counting percentages and showing one side to be correct or not. My point is solely based on bias. Even though samhabib liked to deny the human nature - all of us are biased in every subject due to our beliefs and personal experiences. But the question is can we put our bias aside? For example in law a jury isn't a group of non-biased people , it's a group of people that can put their bias, beliefs, opinions aside and can decide based on a written set of rules and directions.

I have never heard of the 51% lead vocal, 50% duet and

 

[MJultimatemusiclegen]

This might be quiet interesting, i'll go through breaking news, and put a percentage next to each line as to how much it sounds like MJ 100% being that is definantly michael jackson, i'd put my life on it, 0% being there is no way that is michael jackson, i'd put my life on it.

Everybody wanting a piece of Michael Jackson. 11%
Reporters stalking the moves of Michael Jackson. 11%
Just when you thought he was done, 9%
he comes to give it again.” 10%

no matter what, you just wanna read it again 16%
no matter what, you just wanna feel it again 16%

now is that strange that i fall in love 12%
who is the boogie man you thinkin’ of 13%
all went crazy coz im just in love 12%
this is breaking news X2 12%

everybody watching the news of michael jackson 18%
They want to see that I fall, 17%
cause I’m Michael Jackson 10%

You write the words to destroy 12%
like it’s a weapon 8%

you turn your back on the love and you think you can get it again 9%

no matter what, you just wanna read it again 16%
no matter what, you just wanna feel it again 16%

now is that strange that i fall in love see other chorus
who is the boogie man you thinkin’ of
all went crazy coz im just in love
this is breaking news X2

now is that strange that i fall inlove
who is the boogie man you thinkin’ of
all went crazy coz im just in love
this is breaking news X2

On the news today they say we're crazy (for celebrity) 67%
And on the screen today we want displayed baby 46%


now is that strange that i fall in love
who is the boogie man you thinkin’ of
all went crazy coz im just in love
this is breaking news X2

now is that strange that i fall in love
who is the boogie man you thinkin’ of
all went crazy coz im just in love
this is breaking news X2

YOU’RE BREAKING NEWS 40%

So in conclusion it's only the bridge that i can see could have any chance of being MJ. yes i know most of these lyrics are wrong, got it off some dodgy site

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Are you saying for one to be impartial, one has to take a stop-watch out, count the seconds with Michael's vocals, the seconds with supporting/additonal/background singers' vocals, then do a math? So, if the result is telling me Michael is in 50.1%, then one has to accept the song is a Michael Jackson song in the court of law?

Like I said it wasn't a perfect legal example. I don't know if there's a specific law about it either. If we were to go with simple math 51% would be enough to be considered as lead hence the word "technically". I guess I should have been more clear.

I said the point wasn't about determining percentages (as it's not a perfect example like I mentioned). The point is if required can we put our beliefs, opinions aside and decide based on a set of predetermined rules?

In other words if the law said "51% is satisfactory" can you put aside " I have to feel him or he has to sing this line" aside and say "yes it's 51% and therefore it's him"? - This is all hypothetical of course.

again I want to express that this is not a debate about the "vocal controversy" or I'm not offering any explanation (in other words I'm not saying Michael sing 51% hence it's okay) - all are hypothetical examples-, it's simply about "bias" that we all have.

------

In a court of law objective scientific tests such as DNA, fingerprint, forensic audiologist reports will have more weight than other kinds of evidence because they would use predetermined methods and "do the math" and come to a conclusion. They wouldn't have " I think" , "I believe", "I hear", "I feel" attached to them - hence "objective".

The next will be "educated opinions" based on the level of knowledge and credibility.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

As many were biascussing, I decided to use believers arguments, so I went to dig up some evidence about the fact that Michael Jackson IS singing on those Cascio tracks. Here's an article that attests that there is so much proof and that we'll soon get it:

<HEADER>
Michael Jackson: &#8220;Secret&#8221; Work Tapes Will Prove It&#8217;s His Voice on Tracks (&#8220;Hold My Hand&#8221; Now Available)

<TIME>11/14/10 11:37pm</TIME> Roger Friedman 38
<IFRAME style="WIDTH: 110px; HEIGHT: 20px" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter For Websites: Tweet Button" tabIndex=0 src="http://platform0.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html?_=1297721389772&count=horizontal&lang=en&text=Michael%20Jackson%3A%20%E2%80%9CSecret%E2%80%9D%20Work%20Tapes%20Will%20Prove%20It%E2%80%99s%20His%20Voice%20on%20Tracks%20(%E2%80%9CHold%20My%20Hand%E2%80%9D%20Now%20Available)&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.showbiz411.com%2F2010%2F11%2F14%2Fmichael-jackson-secret-work-tapes-will-prove-its-his-voice-on-tracks&via=showbiz411" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME><SCRIPT type=text/javascript src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></SCRIPT><IFRAME style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 150px; HEIGHT: 21px; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none" class=facebook_share src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/11/14/michael-jackson-secret-work-tapes-will-prove-its-his-voice-on-tracks&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=150&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=21" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>

<!-- end .post_meta --></HEADER>As Michael Jackson&#8216;s new single, &#8220;Hold My Hand,&#8221; goes &#8220;live&#8221; tonight (www.michaeljackson.com) , I can tell you a bit more about his new album.
There had been some concern that no outtakes existed of the tracks Jackson recorded with Eddie Cascio. Michael&#8217;s nephews have gone into overdrive trying to discredit the tracks. They&#8217;ve claimed it&#8217;s not their uncle&#8217;s voice on the recordings.
But now sources tell me that there were &#8220;work tapes&#8221; made during the Cascio sessions. These aren&#8217;t outtakes of the songs, but tapes running in the studio while Michael discussed what was going on with Eddie Cascio and other members of the Cascio family. Jackson&#8217;s own kids even make cameo appearances on the tapes. At some point, the work tapes will be released, although it&#8217;s unclear by whom. The main thing is, there&#8217;s plenty of evidence of Michael Jackson working with Eddie Cascio.
Still, it&#8217;s nice to know that the tapes prove once and for all what was going on in the Cascios&#8217; home studio in the summer of 2007. It&#8217;s truly, without a doubt, Michael Jackson on the recordings.
There are three Cascio tracks on the new album. &#8220;Breaking News,&#8221; of course, has already been heard. Last Friday, &#8220;Keep Your Head Up&#8221; was leaked to the internet. Some people heard it, but Sony&#8217;s legal team moved quickly to have it removed. It&#8217;s a great record. The third Cascio track, &#8220;Monster,&#8221; with 50 Cent, remains a mystery, although I&#8217;ve heard good things about it.

<!-- end .article_wrapper --><FOOTER>Categories: Media, Music




------

On a personal note, the only drawback of the article is that it dates back to 14th NOVEMBER 2010!!! I must add that I'm still waiting for that proof as claimed by the article:

And finally when Eddie appeared on TV, he brought that proof saying:

"I was pushing the buttons." Teddy confirming: "ummm, pause, ummmm, pause, it's pause, it's Michael".


</FOOTER>

 

[MJultimatemusiclegen]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I hope tracks like this never happen again on any future MJ releases, what a disastor.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I hope tracks like this never happen again on any future MJ releases, what a disastor.

Who's a Disator? It sounds as a sequel to Terminator.