Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Aniram]

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

^ I think it was the hat and jacket and facial hair combo. :lol: You're right... Jason, oh my... those pants are scarred in my memory.

 

[Arklove]

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

The snort and the voice timbre. I don't know about others. But, I can't tell the difference. To me, it's the same person.

Before, I was not 100% that Jason Malachi is the supporting vocalist. What I was 100% sure is that there is no way the lead vocal is 100% Michael Jackson.

Last night, I saw a myspace video clip of Jason's live performance (I believe Sam posted it), it further convinced me that Jason has enough talents to sound very close to Michael.

The Cascio tracks DO sound closer to Jason Malachi than to Michael Jackson.

Yes, I agree....When I showed my boyfriend that audio of KYHU and Room 2 Breathe....I explained what it was, that it was 2 different songs, sung by supposedly two different people....He said right in the middle of it...'I thought you said it was two songs? Sounds like one to me...'....:mello: So...yeah...lol...

Without a single doubt in my mind...It's Jason singing these songs...

Eddie does not like a boy-bad reject. Jason looks like he's ready to do a Jersey Shore audition. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

:hysterical: haha, what a picture in my mind....lol

 

[Aniram]

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

Your boyfriend just wants to please you. He knows you think they're fake. :lol:

 

[Arklove]

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

Your boyfriend just wants to please you. He knows you think they're fake. :lol:

Oh, trust me..He'd argue with me tooth and nail if he didn't agree....He says what he's thinking lol

 

[Aniram]

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

Maybe he thinks you'd leave him if you found out he's a 'believer', OH NO!!!

 

[Arklove]

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

Maybe he thinks you'd leave him if you found out he's a 'believer', OH NO!!!

I would

:lol:

 

[Dorian]

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

I just made a connection!

Singing in the show + water.

WATER IS AN OFFICIAL SONG THEN!EVEYRTHING MAKES SENSE NOW!

 

[Pentum]

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

I just made a connection!

Singing in the show + water.

WATER IS AN OFFICIAL SONG THEN!EVEYRTHING MAKES SENSE NOW!

What about this!

Eddie pushing hot and cold buttons in shower while MJ singing, makes MJ's body temperature go crazy and MJ would sound different! Try it!


I'M NOW A BELIEVER!!!!

Pentum, this is the best comparison you have done. Big thank you!

It's the SAME voice. Unbelievable... :bugeyed

That comparison is the best one I've heard yet. Thank you Pentum.

Hey, it wasn't suppose to be a voice comparison, but a snort comparison! But thanks anyway. I think the KYHU VS Room 2 Breath is the best one yet along with Falsetto Yoghurt, Let Me Go, Monster Yoghurt and Rough Yoghurt! :jump:

 

[dangerous_88]

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

What about this!

Eddie pushing hot and cold buttons in shower while MJ singing, makes MJ's body temperature go crazy and MJ would sound different! Try it!


I'M NOW A BELIEVER!!!!

hahahahaahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[samhabib]

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

I would

:lol:

That's conviction! Like "you think that's Michael? Get the **** outta my house!"

 

[Kapital77]

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

what about this!

Eddie pushing hot and cold buttons in shower while mj singing, makes mj's body temperature go crazy and mj would sound different! Try it!


i'm now a believer!!!!

!!! Lol !!!

 

[Dorian]

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

I'm actually eager to listen to Water and Burn 2Night h34r:

 

[Worldwide]

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

I just made a connection!

Singing in the show + water.

WATER IS AN OFFICIAL SONG THEN!EVEYRTHING MAKES SENSE NOW!

zomg that proves Burn Tonight is a real track also! Eddie pushed the hot water button instead on that day!!!

 

[Dorian]

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

zomg that proves Burn Tonight is a real track also! Eddie pushed the hot water button instead on that day!!!

:lmao: good one.I suppose it was night when MJ was BURNING!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Executors aren't required to be an employee or a relative etc of a person. Executors are people that are willing and able to do the job.

The only "logical" reason to make a new will if you need to update anything. MJ's will isn't really the most important aspect here. His trust is. In his lifetime he had created a MJ Family Trust that he put all his assets in. It determines everything.

So there was no reason for him to update a will unless he had a child, married, divorced or wanted to change the executors. His personal life (marriage and children) didn't change since 2002 and if he wanted to keep Branca as executor he had no reason to update his will - this also ties very well with my previous post of Branca's work history which says that he was rehired and then left amicably and then was called back- in short they were in good terms all along.

Plus Raymone Bain says she twice asked MJ about making a will /updating a will and he said he had one. Apparently he didn't feel the need to make changes.

Like or hate it - Branca is one of the top entertainment lawyers in US and he's more than capable of running MJ's estate and he's unarguably much more qualified than any Jackson.

Oh no doubt about Branca's abilities. That's actually what scares me. He's more than capable running businesses.

Here's how I see things at the moment. Correct me if my pattern is wrong:

-Branca had worked for Michael for years and made good business for him (since the 80s).

-Michael signs a giga 10-year contract with SONY for 1 billion dollars in 1991. The terms of the contract stipulate that Michael owes 6 albums with new materials in those ten years.

-Michael delivers:

1) Dangerous
2) History
3) Blood on the dancefloor
4) Invincible

-Michael feels SONY is less and less interested in his art and more and more in his Beatles 500 million worth catalog (+ his own catalog).

-Michael owns 50-50 % ATV-SONY

-Michael feels SONY wants ATV-SONY 100%.

-Michael delivered "INVINCIBLE" in 2001, his contract should end, but as he didn't deliver 6 albums, he owes 2 albums with new material and officially has a deadline until 2006 to deliver the new material. In return SONY has his mechanical copyright until Michael delivers the two remaining albums.

-Michael in 2001/2 wants to get away from SONY as he fears that SONY's interets is his catalog, not his albums. (Hence lack of promotion for any of Michael's albums).

-Michael is still represented by Branca in the early 2000, but cannot trust him as Branca's law firm is hired by SONY.

-However, Michael, thanks to Branca's abilities managed to extract himself earlier from the contract with SONY (yet owing two albums with new material.

-SONY release albums for which they possess mechanical copyrights:

NUMBER ONES + 1 NEW SONG in 2003
ULTIMATE COLLECTION + 8 NEW SONGS in 2004
THE ESSENTIAL in 2005
VISIONARY in 2006
THRILLER 25 + 1 NEW SONG in 2008
KING OF POP


-Prior to the releases, as Michael was afraid for his catalogue and even to get killed for it, Michael didn't trust anyone, so he hired a private detective to snoop around. The detective finds out that Branca's got some money into his off-shore account from SONY (why???)


-Michael fired Branca asking him to hand over all the original contractual documents and assuring him that he'll get copies. Branca never gave back those originals, hence he was in possession of the original will from 2002 even though he was fired (and re-hired afterwards) and asked to give back the originals. Michael in 2003/4/5 had other fish to fry (especially his cout battle) and surely didn't expect to die so soon. So probably hadn't realized that Branca still owed him the originals.


-In 2006/7 Michael signs a contract as a free agent with 2SEAS RECORD. The contract stipulates that Michael was to produce 2 albums with the new material. If he signed a contract with 2SEAS RECORD, isn't it logical to assume that Michael did not want to work back with SONY?


-SONY still owned the mechanical copyrigts and Michael still didn't deliver any new material to SONY. Even in 2009, SONY didn't get anything from Michael.


-Michael needed money, so he decided to tour rather than to deliver two albums with new material to SONY. Knowing that he hated to tour, why such a choice? The ticket sales were a huge success. Michael suddenly "died". Some people around him claim that he was murdered, including Teddy Riley who later expressed the belief that he was actually alive.


-The executor of his will happens to be --Branca.


-At the funeral, SONY is nowhere to be seen, but in 2010 they release a new album with "new" songs.


Knowing all these facts, and being only the top of the ice-berg, it appears clear that:


1) Michael did not want to do business with SONY anymore.
2) Michael's fear to be killed was not a paranoia, the threat and "execution" was real.
3) SONY is still not interested in Michael's promotion, but in is catalogue.




I might be wrong on some points as I do not have access to all the business documents, but from what Michael claimed something fishy was going on. He was in deep trouble and had no way out of it. He was cornered.




Surprise, surprise, a few days ago it seems that ATV/SONY business is moving towards... I don't know where to, but with Branca as the executor of the will, I wouldn't be surprised if one day SONY acquires 100% of the ATV/SONY catalog. I might be wrong, so I need any fan's neutral help on this pattern of mine.

 

[Jesta]

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

Branca does seem particularly shady, because of this timeline. If Michael made two new albums, would he have gotten his mechanical copyrights? Surely he could've released some half-hearted material, or something like "Chaos and Disorder" from Prince! The being said, I still say that touring would've been excellent promotion for new albums, and in the time between legs, as well as the time afterward would've been perfect to release 2 new albums!

Can someone please give me a bit of background info on McClain? I hardly know anything about him.

 

[samhabib]

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

Those pictures at the launch party of Branca, Dileo and Cascio toasting to the launch of these disgusting songs gave me the creeps. They looked like a bunch of mafiaso.

 

[ivy]

-Michael is still represented by Branca in the early 2000, but cannot trust him as Branca's law firm is hired by SONY.

there's also an informed consent Michael signed about the conflict of interest - that was in Joe's lawsuit as well. so this is not a conflict of interest issue.
The claim was fraud and double dealing.

-Prior to the releases, as Michael was afraid for his catalogue and even to get killed for it, Michael didn't trust anyone, so he hired a private detective to snoop around. The detective finds out that Branca's got some money into his off-shore account from SONY (why???)

that's actually quite interesting if you read the interfor testimony at the trial. The account is existed but Branca isn't the signor on the account and therefore cannot take money from the account. In the 2005 trial it was argued that it could have been an account set up by Branca for Michael's benefit that Sony put money into.

Q. Okay. And did your investigation get far enough to establish that, in fact, this lawyer was a signatory on that account?
A. I don’t believe so, no.
Q. But the investigation did indicate he was somehow involved in the account, correct?
A. The investigator’s report so indicated.


Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered with that report to substantiate those claims.
Q. And in fact, that report only indicate that Sony was depositing money in some offshore account, apparently for Mr. -- on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, true?
A. I’m not sure about the “Mr. Jackson’s behalf.” I would need to see the report.
Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe that any funds transferred to an offshore account by Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
A. I was given no credible evidence to support those charges. I would be doing Mr. Branca and Mr. Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.

http://www.geniusmichaeljackson.com/court/Transcripts/Court Transcript 5 13 2005.txt

ps: an offshore account makes sense in Michael's case to avoid taxes and protect assets /money (especially in the case of bankruptcy).

-Michael fired Branca asking him to hand over all the original contractual documents and assuring him that he'll get copies. Branca never gave back those originals, hence he was in possession of the original will from 2002 even though he was fired (and re-hired afterwards) and asked to give back the originals. Michael in 2003/4/5 had other fish to fry (especially his cout battle) and surely didn't expect to die so soon. So probably hadn't realized that Branca still owed him the originals.

why not add the times he was rehired to the mix? he could have give the documents back in february 2003 and then got them back he was rehired and so on.

Plus a will isn't an business document. You generally write a will and put it in a safe place (safe deposit box) or give it to someone for safe keeping. The lawyer that prepared it will have a copy as well. US law says that if you have a person's will for safe keeping in 30 days you have to either file it with the court or give it to the executor named in the will.

So as you can see as Branca was an executor it would make sense that he had the will, or even if Michael gave it to someone else to safe keep it they could have turn it to Branca after Michael's death.

Also Will isn't a document that you need to get back. You need to write a new will to make the older one invalid.

So even if Michael had the 2002 will back in his possession it would still be valid. so who had the will versus validity of the will are two different issues.

-Michael delivered "INVINCIBLE" in 2001, his contract should end, but as he didn't deliver 6 albums, he owes 2 albums with new material and officially has a deadline until 2006 to deliver the new material.

-However, Michael, thanks to Branca's abilities managed to extract himself earlier from the contract with SONY (yet owing two albums with new material.

-Michael needed money, so he decided to tour rather than to deliver two albums with new material to SONY. Knowing that he hated to tour, why such a choice?

this is the most mistaken part and actually you are one right one wrong. It seems like you don't understand what "getting out of the contract" means.

So let's say you are right that MJ's contract called for 2 more albums till 2006.

He got out of the contract early (either 2002 or 2006 before he signed with neverland and/or 2seas records).

In order to get out of the contract both sides sit down and come to an agreement which is in this case is most likely "okay do not deliver the 2 albums but we'll hold on to your back catalog till 2012".

after that is signed and you got out the contract there's no going back to it it's over.

Michael for example in 2004 couldn't say "okay I'll give you 2 albums and give back my back catalog". That contract was over.

so delivering 2 albums to Sony wasn't an option any more.

1) Michael did not want to do business with SONY anymore.

This I don't agree due to projects such as Thriller 25 which is as proven a new and separate project. Like I said if you say Michael didn't want a long term album contract with Sony I'll agree but he was doing business with Sony on individual project basis.

3) SONY is still not interested in Michael's promotion, but in is catalogue.

sony's interest in the catalog still doesn't add up. 2006 refinancing deal gave them the option to buy half of Michael's share (25%) which they never did. They could have gotten that 25% when Micheal was alive (no need to kill him for it). And the catalog stays safe and sound with the estate. The trust calls for a "legit business reason" to sell any asset so I really cannot see anyone benefiting or getting close to buying the catalog due to Michael's death.

Actually if you are following other news Michael had $400M debt when he died, his catalogs were collateral to this big loans and they were up to be paid in 2011 and 2012. If TII didn't do well (or if Michael wasn't able to do TII) and Michael get money, he could have failed to pay the loans and that could have put the catalogs up for sale (repossesed by the banks and sold). (remember the lawsuits / claims that says Michael felt pressured , he had to do the concerts or lose everything and work at McDonals? this is what they mean). So if the goal was to get the catalog an alive but in financial distressed Michael was a better alternative than a dead and making $310M in a year Michael.

 

[Arklove]

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

That's conviction! Like "you think that's Michael? Get the **** outta my house!"

Yes, that's how it'd go.....Blasphemy! :bugeyed

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

there's also an informed consent Michael signed about the conflict of interest - that was in Joe's lawsuit as well. so this is not a conflict of interest issue.
The claim was fraud and double dealing.



that's actually quite interesting if you read the interfor testimony at the trial. The account is existed but Branca isn't the signor on the account and therefore cannot take money from the account. In the 2005 trial it was argued that it could have been an account set up by Branca for Michael's benefit that Sony put money into.

Q. Okay. And did your investigation get far enough to establish that, in fact, this lawyer was a signatory on that account?
A. I don’t believe so, no.
Q. But the investigation did indicate he was somehow involved in the account, correct?
A. The investigator’s report so indicated.


Q. As far as the John Branca and Tommy Motolla investigation by Interfor, Interfor never found any evidence that Mr. Motolla or Mr. Branca were engaged in any fraud with Mr. Jackson, did they?
A. That’s correct. I had no evidence delivered with that report to substantiate those claims.
Q. And in fact, that report only indicate that Sony was depositing money in some offshore account, apparently for Mr. -- on Mr. Jackson’s behalf, true?
A. I’m not sure about the “Mr. Jackson’s behalf.” I would need to see the report.
Q. Okay. But you have no reason to believe that any funds transferred to an offshore account by Sony, you have no reason to believe that those funds were somehow defrauding Mr. Jackson?
A. I was given no credible evidence to support those charges. I would be doing Mr. Branca and Mr. Motolla a great wrong if I said otherwise.

http://www.geniusmichaeljackson.com/court/Transcripts/Court%20Transcript%205%2013%202005.txt

ps: an offshore account makes sense in Michael's case to avoid taxes and protect assets /money (especially in the case of bankruptcy).



why not add the times he was rehired to the mix? he could have give the documents back in february 2003 and then got them back he was rehired and so on.

Plus a will isn't an business document. You generally write a will and put it in a safe place (safe deposit box) or give it to someone for safe keeping. The lawyer that prepared it will have a copy as well. US law says that if you have a person's will for safe keeping in 30 days you have to either file it with the court or give it to the executor named in the will.

So as you can see as Branca was an executor it would make sense that he had the will, or even if Michael gave it to someone else to safe keep it they could have turn it to Branca after Michael's death.

Also Will isn't a document that you need to get back. You need to write a new will to make the older one invalid.

So even if Michael had the 2002 will back in his possession it would still be valid. so who had the will versus validity of the will are two different issues.







this is the most mistaken part and actually you are one right one wrong. It seems like you don't understand what "getting out of the contract" means.

So let's say you are right that MJ's contract called for 2 more albums till 2006.

He got out of the contract early (either 2002 or 2006 before he signed with neverland and/or 2seas records).

In order to get out of the contract both sides sit down and come to an agreement which is in this case is most likely "okay do not deliver the 2 albums but we'll hold on to your back catalog till 2012".

after that is signed and you got out the contract there's no going back to it it's over.

Michael for example in 2004 couldn't say "okay I'll give you 2 albums and give back my back catalog". That contract was over.

so delivering 2 albums to Sony wasn't an option any more.



This I don't agree due to projects such as Thriller 25 which is as proven a new and separate project. Like I said if you say Michael didn't want a long term album contract with Sony I'll agree but he was doing business with Sony on individual project basis.



sony's interest in the catalog still doesn't add up. 2006 refinancing deal gave them the option to buy half of Michael's share (25%) which they never did. They could have gotten that 25% when Micheal was alive (no need to kill him for it). And the catalog stays safe and sound with the estate. The trust calls for a "legit business reason" to sell any asset so I really cannot see anyone benefiting or getting close to buying the catalog due to Michael's death.

Actually if you are following other news Michael had $400M debt when he died, his catalogs were collateral to this big loans and they were up to be paid in 2011 and 2012. If TII didn't do well (or if Michael wasn't able to do TII) and Michael get money, he could have failed to pay the loans and that could have put the catalogs up for sale (repossesed by the banks and sold). (remember the lawsuits / claims that says Michael felt pressured , he had to do the concerts or lose everything and work at McDonals? this is what they mean). So if the goal was to get the catalog an alive but in financial distressed Michael was a better alternative than a dead and making $310M in a year Michael.

Ok thanks for some clarification. However I still have doubts about "good intentions" from SONY or Branca or Mottola. There is no such thing in business. SONY does know how to pressure legally.

Let's not forget that in Michael's own words he feared to be killed. And he is as a matter of fact dead.

The short deal with SONY (THRILLER 25) was dealt by Bain and I am not convinced that Michael himself wanted to go back to SONY. If that was the case why the hell did he sign with 2 RECORD SEAS? Why didn't he continue with SONY? Except from the short deal, nothing indicates that Michael wanted to work back with SONY.

I'm just curious to see when this catalogue SONY/ATV will be owned by SONY 100%.

 

[donalb]

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

Correction : it also shows that without adding logic to the mix (as I separated them) I said "Some parts sound like Michael some don't." so I heard Michael all along. and that has been my position since the beginning.

I mentioned on this thread that I was "torn" multiple times due to the "additional vocals" and didn't know what to make of them - legit or imposter- and that after information came out I concluded them to be legit.

My logic tell me it's unlikely that they'll risk so much with such a fraud, even without logic my ears heard Michael. (find my post that says when I listened to acapella it sounded more like Michael)

as far as my ears go as I said in my very last post I don't claim superiority and perfection (I never do in any subject) but I'm not deaf either.

and still put me aside, how about other people with established musical ears?

Ivy: I am very confused. Are the "additional vocals" you were torn about only related to the background vocals which are credited? Or, did/do you also have concerns regarding some of the lead vocals which are only credited to Michael Jackson? I also recall an earlier statement where you said that another staff member believed in the authenticity of Monster based on the "additional vocal" credits even though he said that Michael did not sing "He's coming at ya, Coming at ya rather too fast, Mama say mama got you in a zig zag" which are lead vocals from the 2nd verse. Are there different interpretations of what the lead vocals are on these songs?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Ivy: I am very confused. Are the "additional vocals" you were torn about only related to the background vocals which are credited? Or, did/do you also have concerns regarding some of the lead vocals which are only credited to Michael Jackson? I also recall an earlier statement where you said that another staff member believed in the authenticity of Monster based on the "additional vocal" credits even though he said that Michael did not sing "He's coming at ya, Coming at ya rather too fast, Mama say mama got you in a zig zag" which are lead vocals from the 2nd verse. Are there different interpretations of what the lead vocals are on these songs?

That would be SmoothCriminal05?

 

[donalb]

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

That would be SmoothCriminal05?

Indeed

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Indeed

Why am I not surprised, lol.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Michael didn't have a record deal apparently according to sky news:

See from 1:55

[youtube]TQCaGi6Us4A&feature=player_embedded#at=151[/youtube]

Here some older news from 2002 and on:

June 18, 2002
By Roger Friedman
Michael Jackson, Sony Music Getting Divorced

It's over. And I mean, officially. Michael Jackson is leaving Sony.
My inside sources at Sony told me yesterday that as Jackson exits Sony, he also leaves behind his catalog including the hit albums Off the Wall, Thriller, Bad and Dangerous,
not to mention the less successful HIStory, Blood on the Dance Floor and Invincible. This means that wherever Michael goes label-wise, he has nothing but his talent to offer prospective investors.


January 16, 2003
By Roger Friedman
Jackson Not Coming Back to Sony

This is the definitive word, folks, from my source at Sony Music regarding Michael Jackson. With the departure of Tommy Mottola also comes the last word on Michael Jackson, take it or leave it. There was some flicker of thought that Mottola's end meant a chance for <CITY w:st="on">
Jackson</PLACE></CITY> to reignite his relationship with Sony. But now I am told that is not a possibility.
<CITY w:st="on">Jackson</CITY></PLACE> will get the masters to his albums back in five to eight years, possibly. But he still owes the company $200 million in loans. He will be paying the interest on those loans for a long, long time, perhaps forever.


"The loan won't be forgiven. Why should it?" asked my source. "We're happy to collect the interest. But Michael is done here as far as new recordings."

October 19, 2005
By Roger Friedman
No Record deal in the near Future

Michael Jackson&#8217;s plans for a new sort of &#8220;We Are the World&#8221; are fading fast. He has no record deal. Even though Jackson has been in London hoping to get his charity single recorded, no one&#8217;s jumped at the chance to distribute it.


October 17, 2007
By Roger Friedman
Jackson&#8217;s Thriller Plans
<CITY w:st="on">Jackson</CITY> has no plans for a new album, but his die-hard fans will be happy to hear
<CITY w:st="on">Jackson</CITY></PLACE> is involved in putting together a 25th anniversary edition of his best-selling album, "Thriller." <CITY w:st="on">
Jackson</PLACE></CITY>&#8217;s new music attorney, Peter Lopez, told me on Tuesday that the pop star has no interest in touring or performing. Lopez said: "He feels he&#8217;s done that". "Thriller 25" will be issued by Sony because it&#8217;s part of that catalog. But
<CITY w:st="on">Jackson</CITY></PLACE> has no recording contract and, frankly, no interest from record companies.



&#8220;You know he is no longer with Sony&#8221;
&#8211;PAUL RUSSELL, former Sony/ATV President, 2005
"Michael did not fulfill the terms of the contract so Sony kept all the copyrights. The re-issues like Thriller 25 were merely repackaging. By the time Michael realized what had happened, he was unable to buy back the copyrights for a number of reasons. Chief among these was that he was heavily in debt but also Sony were not obliged to sell them to him as they considered him in breach of contract. I do not believe any deal was done with Sony upon Michael's return from <COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on">
Bahrain</PLACE></COUNTRY-REGION>. In fact, it may well be that part of the reason he fell out with the Sheik over this very issue. The deal with Sony was concluded by Michael's estate and AEG after his death." -LYNTON GUEST


"He wasn't ever back on good terms with Sony. It was not gonna be happening with Sony again" &#8211;STUART BACKERMAN

"​

 

[ivy]

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

Let's not forget that in Michael's own words he feared to be killed. And he is as a matter of fact dead.

is he killed for the thing that he feared? As far as we see Murray killed Michael without intent and malice. Jackson family claims that AEG wasn't doing their part and looking out for him. No one is blaming Sony for Michael's death.

What you are saying is that Sony hired Murray to kill Michael so that they can get his catalog.

Still to me it doesn't make sense (as there's no such tie) as they could simply gotten Michael's half share (25%) easily when he's alive. Why plan an elaborate murder conspiracy when they can simply said "we are exercising this option and getting the 25% making you a minority shareholder"?

Ivy: I am very confused. Are the "additional vocals" you were torn about only related to the background vocals which are credited? Or, did/do you also have concerns regarding some of the lead vocals which are only credited to Michael Jackson?

some lead vocals is supported by James Porte I think. but that doesn't make it "fake". For example "I just can't stop loving you" is mainly credited as MJ song with Siedah Garrett only billed as "featuring". As James Porte is credited , it makes it okay.

Michael didn't have a record deal

Yes he didn't and I said it over and over again by "he didn't have a long term album contract" and "he was a free agent". So no one is claiming that he had a record deal with any company for that matter.

Yet as it was pointed out he was doing individual project based deals with Sony.

and as pointed out any album that included new previously unreleased songs wasn't merely a repackaging. Raymone Bain's lawsuit and claiming that she deserves the 10% finder's fee for that obviously demonstrates that it was a new business that she played a role in bringing in (with Peter Lopez).

In short he was out of his contract, he had no record deal with anybody and was doing individual projects with businesses including Sony.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

is he killed for the thing that he feared? As far as we see Murray killed Michael without intent and malice. Jackson family claims that AEG wasn't doing their part and looking out for him. No one is blaming Sony for Michael's death.

Did I say why was he killed and who killed him? No.
I don't know all the facts, but the few that we see are quite disturbing.

Michael was under huge stress. Big loans, no recording deal, no back catalog, on top of that media was harsh with him.

All we can see is that Michael did not die from natural death! Was it "legal" obligations and pressure depriving him from sleep or something else? I don't know. But what I do know is that he had illegal products which killed him thanks to his doctor!

What you are saying is that Sony hired Murray to kill Michael so that they can get his catalog.

Quote me where I said that.

I said we know only the top of the ice-berg, but not what's under. By the way Teddy Riley before claiming that he is alive supported the theory that he was killed, didn't he?

Still to me it doesn't make sense (as there's no such tie) as they could simply gotten Michael's half share (25%) easily when he's alive. Why plan an elaborate murder conspiracy when they can simply said "we are exercising this option and getting the 25% making you a minority shareholder"?

To me it doesn't make sense that he possessed propofol --something that MUST NOT leave any hospital, yet Michael had it.

To me it doesn't make sense that Michael is dead despite the 24/7 medical check-ups and a personal cardilogist, yet Michael is dead.

To me it doesn't make sense that SONY wasn't interested in Michael when he left and now all of sudden they are.

To me it doesn't make sense that Michael ordered to destroy all the recordings and traces of the Cascio tracks, yet they are considered to be rough demos and not finished tracks.

To me it odesn't make sense that we have identical snorts on Breaking News and Jason Malachi's songs, yet they are there.

And the list goes down.

some lead vocals is supported by James Porte I think. but that doesn't make it "fake". For example "I just can't stop loving you" is mainly credited as MJ song with Siedah Garrett only billed as "featuring". As James Porte is credited , it makes it okay.

It doesn't say "featuring James Porte", I suppose there are rules for that too. You just don't put "featuring" whenever you want I suppose.

Yes he didn't and I said it over and over again by "he didn't have a long term album contract" and "he was a free agent". So no one is claiming that he had a record deal with any company for that matter.

Yes, but why mentioning "long term"? I wasn't talking about short term or long term contracts. I was talking in general. There was no interest whatsoever.

 

[ivy]

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

Did I say why was he killed and who killed him? No.

you added a quote from Micheal saying that he would be killed for his catalog and added that Branca will sell the catalog to Sony.

It doesn't seem like you are saying that he died of an accident. On the contrary you are proposing that his death had to do with the catalog and had Sony and Branca as players involved.

If this is not what you are saying why bring that quote and claim the catalog will be sold in this thread?

It doesn't say "featuring James Porte", I suppose there are rules for that too. You just don't put "featuring" whenever you want I suppose.

featuring is generally used for "known" professional artists that is at one part of the song.

my point was the song with Siedah should have been billed as a "duet" but yet it was minimized to "featuring". (It's obvious that Siedah is singing all through the song and not just singing one verse)

What James Porte did could account for "featuring" but as he's a no name musician they could simply credit him with a regular mention.

as long as both sides are okay with the classification of "duet, featuring or just a mention" and everyone singing is credited one way or another it's okay.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

you added a quote from Micheal saying that he would be killed for his catalog and added that Branca will sell the catalog to Sony.

It doesn't seem like you are saying that he died of an accident. On the contrary you are proposing that his death had to do with the catalog and had Sony and Branca as players involved.

If this is not what you are saying why bring that quote and claim the catalog will be sold in this thread?

Branca selling the catalog to SONY is one thing. Murder is another. I would never dare accuse anyone when I am not sure. All I did is raised some points Michael mentioned and some facts that happened. Up to you to connect the dots. If I knew more facts and points I would have raised them too. But that is all we've got for the moment. I still haven't hastily been drawing conclusion in that sense (that SONY killed him or hired a killer) All I did is pointed out how convenient some things are now that Michael is dead.

 

[samhabib]

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

Sony only had the option to buy the additional 25% if Michael failed to keep up his repayments - which never happened. And especially wouldn't have ever have happened with the windfall the O2 shows were about to bring in. They didn't have the option to buy it anytime they wanted. It was conditional on him missing payments.