Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Aniram]

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

Sorry, Pentum, good job and everything, but I don't think they sound the same.

 

[Jesta]

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

Well it could've been a gateway for a new album. Think about it, "This Is It" was meant to be his musical retirement, so it would be the perfect time to release the albums he needs to satisfy his contract.

 

[Pentum]

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

Sorry, Pentum, good job and everything, but I don't think they sound the same.

 

[ivy]

so is it fair to assume that despite all this it was indeed Branca alone or Branca and sony that still gave approval to put these songs on the album despite all the doubt and negative reaction?

quoting roger friedman


Yesterday I was told there was no deal brokered yet between all the fractious parties in the Jackson camp. Co executor John McClain was still claiming that the vocals on some of the tracks weren’t Michael’s.
Sony seems to disagree. They’ve made their move.
The decision was made by all parties finally at 11pm last night.

In the end, it may not matter what the Ts, Michael’s children, or his mother, or John McClain thinks. Sony made a deal with the estate earlier this year that could be worth $200 million. They’re so keen on the Cascio tracks they even hired forensic audiologists to make sure the vocals are Michael’s and not those of an imitator

Plus adding as we heard from our members with sources (Smooth, elle, mkgenie) the discussion took a lot of time and we had delays.

All this makes me believe that the song decision didn't lie with a single person/party and needed agreement of multiple parties. If it had been that easy with one person's approval the album wouldn't be delayed from the planned november release.

 

[love is magical]

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

^^Exactly, don't underestimate the effort Michael needed to put in the tour. Watch the TII rehearsal film, I could see the amount of creativity, energy and thought Michael and his collaborators had to put in.

Also, it's true Michael was under a lot of pressure. It's his first stage performance in nearly 10 years and after the trial. All eyes were on him.

The only difference between a residency and a tour is really just the travelling.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Well it could've been a gateway for a new album. Think about it, "This Is It" was meant to be his musical retirement, so it would be the perfect time to release the albums he needs to satisfy his contract.

Yes, but it seems that out of two evils he chose the lesser, despite his age. This whole story of business which started in 1991 eventually killed him. (Just as he had predicted it and confessed to people who he thought were his friends, for example Teddy Riley).

 

[Jesta]

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

Wait, what story of business that started in 1991? That was the year of "Dangerous", right? Which reminds me, does anyone think there are any plans for a special edition of "Dangerous" for this year?

 

[love is magical]

quoting roger friedman


Yesterday I was told there was no deal brokered yet between all the fractious parties in the Jackson camp. Co executor John McClain was still claiming that the vocals on some of the tracks weren’t Michael’s.
Sony seems to disagree. They’ve made their move.
The decision was made by all parties finally at 11pm last night.

In the end, it may not matter what the Ts, Michael’s children, or his mother, or John McClain thinks. Sony made a deal with the estate earlier this year that could be worth $200 million. They’re so keen on the Cascio tracks they even hired forensic audiologists to make sure the vocals are Michael’s and not those of an imitator

Plus adding as we heard from our members with sources (Smooth, elle, mkgenie) the discussion took a lot of time and we had delays.

All this makes me believe that the song decision didn't lie with a single person/party and needed agreement of multiple parties. If it had been that easy with one person's approval the album wouldn't be delayed from the planned november release.

So, it seems John McClain was against the track. But, Sony insisted to include the tracks.

And, would you please let me know what is mechanical copyright?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Wait, what story of business that started in 1991? That was the year of "Dangerous", right? Which reminds me, does anyone think there are any plans for a special edition of "Dangerous" for this year?

That was the year when Michael signed his contract with SONY for 1 billion dollars. Despite that huge amount of money, Michael wanted to get away from SONY, and even daring to call them PHONY as shown on some pictures and videos.

 

[love is magical]

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

Wait, what story of business that started in 1991? That was the year of "Dangerous", right? Which reminds me, does anyone think there are any plans for a special edition of "Dangerous" for this year?

1991 was the year Michael signed the record deal with Sony. Dangerous was the first album released under that record deal.

 

[Jesta]

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

Ah yes, I remember him talking about this during the Grammy(?) acceptance speech in "Dangerous - The Short Films".

Wasn't his main issue with Tommy Mottola, though? I don't think he'd have an issue with the current CEOs.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Ah yes, I remember him talking about this during the Grammy(?) acceptance speech in "Dangerous - The Short Films".

Wasn't his main issue with Tommy Mottola, though? I don't think he'd have an issue with the current CEOs.

Mottola is just a coincidence. He really wanted to get away from SONY. Mottola wasn't in charge any more and despite that, he opted not to release the remaining two new albums under SONY.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

So, it seems John McClain was against the track. But, Sony insisted to include the tracks.

And, would you please let me know what is mechanical copyright?

The Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) are an organisation who pay royalties to composers, songwriters and music publishers when the song they have created has been manufactured into any format. This includes copies of the music alone such as CDs and downloads, and also products which use the music as a part of their soundtrack, such as films and computer games. The MCPS has 17,000 members and was founded in 1911. MCPS are the sponsors of the Gold Badge Awards and have been for 22 years. MCPS entered into an operational alliance with PRS (the Performing Right Society) in 1997, called the MCPS-PRS Alliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical-Copyright_Protection_Society


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-mechanical-copyright.htm

 

[Jesta]

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

Hmm... What comes to my mind is why didn't he do anything once he got away from SONY? He signed the deal with 2SEAS Records, but he didn't do anything with that. Why didn't he release anything outside of SONY?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Hmm... What comes to my mind is why didn't he do anything once he got away from SONY? He signed the deal with 2SEAS Records, but he didn't do anything with that. Why didn't he release anything outside of SONY?

He did do. He hadn't stopped creating. But at the same time he as a matter of fact did have some financial issues. And by the way, he also had legal problems, remember?

 

[ivy]

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

1) There is a huge piece of information that you forgot to mention. Michael, according to the contract, owed 2 new albums to SONY. So if he really wanted to work back with SONY and fulfill the terms of the contract, it would have been sufficient to release the two new albums. He never did it. What is more, if he had done it, he would have gotten his mechanical copyrights back. The fact is that till before his death Michael still hadn't done it.

you have a copy of it?

in 2001 Michael himself said all he needed to do was to give Sony a compilation album with 1-2 unreleased songs - that was ultimate collection. In 2005 Branca negotiated Michael's exit from Sony. From that point on 2 albums etc doesn't matter. The contract was over, Michael was a free agent. Mechanical rights is also similar to what I was meaning by releasing the back catalog (in other words previously released songs) so he didn't have them in 2001 and Sony added years as he didn't deliver the 2 albums - he was going to get them back in 2012. (now it's 2017). It's not in Sony's hands forever.

Technicalities aside it's no secret that in 2001 Michael didn't want to work with Sony. I also said that you would be correct if you said Michael didn't want or had a long term album contract with Sony. He didn't. He was a free agent.

Still none of the above changes the fact that "Thriller 25" was a separate new deal /project that Michael agreed to do with Sony. so it will be wrong to say he was "totally" against working with Sony.

didn't want an record deal? yep
didn't bind himself for a long term? yep
but did he sign up for individual projects? yes he did.

edit: are you quoting muzikfactory? if yes she's a little misinformed in legal stuff. her interpretation of the trust was fundamentally wrong.

note edit: It's not that "abnormal" that different people would "own" different aspects of songs. I gave the example of Beatles before - EMI and Apple corps (Lennon estate & McCarthy) own Mechanical rights , Michael and Sony/ATV own publishing rights.

 

[mjjesamor]

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

Basically it was sony that absolutely insisted on putting these tracks on the album. Funny how now that they are on the album they are not releasing any as singles. Also i remember reading that the cascios didn't want to go on oprah but that sony insisted. They sure did look uncomfortable on that show, that really stood out. They were all really nervous.
Ivy,who purchased the cascio tracks? Estate or sony?

 

[Jesta]

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

Is it possibly because they are not used to being famous!? Who ever heard of the Cascios before this? Of course they'd be nervous being seen across America!!!

 

[Anna]

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

Sorry, Pentum, good job and everything, but I don't think they sound the same.

I agree. The vibrato is very similar, but apart from that, the two voices are easily distinguishable.

If it is someone else besides MJ singing on the Cascio tracks, I don't think it's Malachi. His voice is not consistent enough.

 

[love is magical]

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

Mottola is just a coincidence. He really wanted to get away from SONY. Mottola wasn't in charge any more and despite that, he opted not to release the remaining two new albums under SONY.

If he really wanted to break away from Sony, why didn't he just release two albums and got the mechanical copyright back?

Oh well... given Michael's perfectionist character, I guess he just wouldn't release two albums without giving them any thought...

 

[Aniram]

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

Funny how during the Oprah interview no one in his family is like, 'Eddie, you didn't record any of those songs with Michael in 2007! Where'd these come from?! What the hell?'

The entire family would HAVE to be in on it.

 

[Pompous Git]

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

BTW, guys...Michael's contract with Sony ended in Decemeber 2002 - not 2005 or so. I guess not many know of the deal he had after he officially left Sony as an artist in 2002 and set up Neverland Records. I won't go into specifics, but he couldn't sign a record deal with anyone unless his contract with Sony was done. And it was in 2002. I do believe I have the full info somewhere on Max Jax - this deal was terminated by mutual agreement by all parties in May 2005. By all parties...I definitely don't mean Sony Music - just to be clear.

He just went back to Sony for some one off projects like T25, TUC, etc. Separate contract each time, I believe.

 

[Aniram]

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

I think the music industry has started doing things a little differently this past decade, for the most part.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

you have a copy of it?

in 2001 Michael himself said all he needed to do was to give Sony a compilation album with 1-2 unreleased songs - that was ultimate collection. In 2005 Branca negotiated Michael's exit from Sony. From that point on 2 albums etc doesn't matter. The contract was over, Michael was a free agent. Mechanical rights is also similar to what I was meaning by releasing the back catalog (in other words previously released songs) so he didn't have them in 2001 and Sony added years as he didn't deliver the 2 albums - he was going to get them back in 2012. (now it's 2017). It's not in Sony's hands forever.

Technicalities aside it's no secret that in 2001 Michael didn't want to work with Sony. I also said that you would be correct if you said Michael didn't want or had a long term album contract with Sony. He didn't. He was a free agent.

Still none of the above changes the fact that "Thriller 25" was a separate new deal /project that Michael agreed to do with Sony. so it will be wrong to say he was "totally" against working with Sony.

didn't want an record deal? yep
didn't bind himself for a long term? yep
but did he sign up for individual projects? yes he did.

edit: are you quoting muzikfactory? if yes she's a little misinformed in legal stuff. her interpretation of the trust was fundamentally wrong.

note edit: It's not that "abnormal" that different people would "own" different aspects of songs. I gave the example of Beatles before - EMI and Apple corps (Lennon estate & McCarthy) own Mechanical rights , Michael and Sony/ATV own publishing rights.

If he really wanted to break away from Sony, why didn't he just release two albums and got the mechanical copyright back?

Oh well... given Michael's perfectionist character, I guess he just wouldn't release two albums without giving them any thought...

BTW, guys...Michael's contract with Sony ended in Decemeber 2002 - not 2005 or so. I guess not many know of the deal he had after he officially left Sony as an artist in 2002 and set up Neverland Records. I won't go into specifics, but he couldn't sign a record deal with anyone unless his contract with Sony was done. And it was in 2002. I do believe I have the full info somewhere on Max Jax - this deal was terminated by mutual agreement by all parties in May 2005. By all parties...I definitely don't mean Sony Music - just to be clear.

He just went back to Sony for some one off projects like T25, TUC, etc. Separate contract each time, I believe.

I'm watching ROCKY II now, I'll answer you after if I don't fall asleep.

 

[Jesta]

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

I love "Rocky II"! Granted, it was a lot like the first one. It's great to finally get the expected ending though and show how the underdog can triumph.

 

[ivy]

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

BTW, guys...Michael's contract with Sony ended in Decemeber 2002 - not 2005 or so. I guess not many know of the deal he had after he officially left Sony as an artist in 2002 and set up Neverland Records. I won't go into specifics, but he couldn't sign a record deal with anyone unless his contract with Sony was done. And it was in 2002. I do believe I have the full info somewhere on Max Jax - this deal was terminated by mutual agreement by all parties in May 2005. By all parties...I definitely don't mean Sony Music - just to be clear.

He just went back to Sony for some one off projects like T25, TUC, etc. Separate contract each time, I believe.

thank you

and I'll also correct the misunderstanding of Thriller 25 being just a compilation album with no new deal/ agreement/ contract and what people do not understand about Raymone Bain lawsuit.

Raymone claims as a manager she's entitled to 10% of money(finders fee) that she brought in. She lists Thriller deal as one the work she has done and therefore entitled money for it. It makes it obvious that Thriller 25 was a new agreement.

To recreate the events : Most probably one day Sony called and asked "are you be willing do something new for 25th year anniversary of Thriller?" and Raymone Bain and Peter Lopez said "okay let's talk", they negotiated on it for a while and came to an agreement that both parties (Michael and Sony) signed, Michael did what he was supposed to do and Sony paid him. And Raymone's lawsuit basically says "give me my 10% finders fee from the money you got".

That's what people (without legal knowledge) do not understand from Raymone Bain lawsuit - If it wasn't a new deal that she didn't work on she wouldn't be able ask to be paid for it.

 

[André89]

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

ATTENTION:

Thanks to Worldwide, I was able to make a Keep Your Head Up VS Room 2 Breath [Jason Malachi] with only Keep Your Head Up instrumental. This will blow your mind - please listen closely to the voice.

Note: I did pitch Jason's voice with 2 +. The reason why I did this is because in my opinion, The Cascio tracks are pitched up with at least 2 +. It shouldn't really matter that much, but there is always a slight different.

http://soundcloud.com/pentum/room-2-breath-vs-keep-your

Credits goes to Worldwide.

I would just like to say a big THANK YOU for making this.

I've known from the moment I heard Breaking News that there was no way Michael Jackson sang that dreadful excuse for a song. Or any of the other Cascio tracks, for that sake. I've never understood how anyone, let alone Michael's own fans, are able to hear MJ in those songs. They're just not him.

However, I've been kind of on the fence to whether or not they are Jason Malachi. Even though I've known that some poor impersonator provided the vocals, I've not been able to decide whether or not it's Jason.

Now, all my doubts are gone.

I am now 100 % convinced that the Cascio tracks are sung by Jason Malachi.

 

[Arklove]

I would just like to say a big THANK YOU for making this.

I've known from the moment I heard Breaking News that there was no way Michael Jackson sang that dreadful excuse for a song. Or any of the other Cascio tracks, for that sake. I've never understood how anyone, let alone Michael's own fans, are able to hear MJ in those songs. They're just not him.

However, I've been kind of on the fence to whether or not they are Jason Malachi. Even though I've known that some poor impersonator provided the vocals, I've not been able to decide whether or not it's Jason.

Now, all my doubts are gone.

I am now 100 % convinced that the Cascio tracks are sung by Jason Malachi.

Agreed...With every comparison audio I've heard, it's cemented it even more....

 

[kopwatcher]

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

That video is pretty much proof. You play that to someone with no vested interest or bias (i.e. impartial), and they'll say the same. Send it to TMZ, send it to Roger Friedman, I don't care, send it to someone because this needs to be highlighted as major fraud.

 

[samhabib]

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

I'm going to buy Pentum a cake and some balloons.