Michael - The Great Album Debate

[AnnieRUOkay89]

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

I think AnnieRUOkay is confused.

Nope, I feel I've made myself perfectly clear.

I just have a question. I'm not trying to push any buttons here (I'll leave that to Eddie), but I remember before, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said that if Jason Malachi comes out and says it's him on these tracks, you'd believe it. If you believe that, how can you say you feel MJ on these songs, and attribute to him sounding different to all of the excuses we've been fed? On top of this, you're still not convinced the voices are IDENTICAL in the audio comparisons.

You say that part of the reason you believe it's Michael on the tracks is because Malachi denied that he sung any word on these songs. You know OF COURSE he's going to deny. So I don't understand how this has swayed your belief.

If you haven't heard the 'snort' comparison, you really should listen to it. There is absolutely no way that it's a mere coincidence.

Because as I've said I'm willing to be proven wrong, not to mention if he'd came out and said it, it'd result in some legal action from Sony and The Estate. Because if he isn't the voice on the song, he'd be sued (can't think of the legal term at the moment, if someone were to claim the songs as their own), if there were to be none of that, it'd be safe to assume there would be some truth to it. But due to feelings towards the songs, denials, history between the parties ie. Michael and The Cascio's; And really no action toward the matter, I find it hard to believe they'd take such risk to fake these records.


The fact that he denied participation is only a small part of my belief, but to add to that, there's not much to support the theory that he did. Other than assumption amongst the fanbase and theories, there isn't anything that supports that he gained from this. There's also nothing that backs up him knowing or meeting these people (Cascio's/Sony), he seems to be doing the same thing he was a few years ago, in his musical career and personal life, so how can I assume that he has a reason to lie? When there isn't much to show for it.

And I'd love to hear the 'snort' comparison if I'd knew where it was.

 

[azsummergirl]

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

I've never heard Malachi "snort", so I don't understand what exactly you're attempting to get at. The vibrato isn't the same, it's similar in some instances, but it isn't the same, to me. Listen to a Malachi song, and then listen to these songs, the duration of vibrato on The Cascio tracks progress more than anything Malachi has sung (some blame this on the editing, but whatever), on a song like KYHU and All I Need, they also sound more natural as opposed to the forced one Malachi uses. Now suppose I just forgot about all of that and said it doesn't make a difference, how would I still dispute his own testimony and claims, in saying that he had nothing to do with the songs? I personally, can't. h34r: (Awaits the "excuses" card.)

Now, like you, I'm open minded on this, and I do appreciate the effort being put in by Pentum and others. But it takes more than comparison video's, theories and assumptions to come to a final conclusion, especially when you consider the legal aspects of this thing. None of this would be taken seriously in a court of law, as nothing in this thread has been objective so far. And with Malachi's own denial claims, my feeling that Michael is on these songs, for the most part, it's quite difficult for me to believe otherwise. But as I've said before, I'm open to being proved wrong.




Someone can interpret this as a "fan vs. fan" thing, which is actually forbidden here, thought I'd point that out. But what exactly do you mean? I, nor does any other believer, feel as if Michael was this average singer, which I feel, you're trying to imply. I personally feel Michael will forever be the greatest singer/songwriter/performer that this world will ever see, he's my idol, at the same time I also know he was a human being who suffered the same faults as everyone else, he got sick, he lost/gained weight, he had emotions. For a long time I felt as if he was the second coming of Christ himself, part of me still believes this, but he aged, I pointed out before with the WMA 2006 video, which featured a falsetto that I feel is identical to that on KYHU, that Michael wasn't always 100%, and these songs were done merely a year and a half after he went through a trial that literally robbed a piece of his spirit, a piece of himself, from him. Because I feel it may be him on these records, that doesn't mean I hold him in the same regard as Justin Timberlake, Usher, or Justin Bieber.

sorry i took so long to respond, i went roller skating

first, i want to make it clear that i am in no way referring to you. i've seen it come up as a recurring theme in this thread, so that's why i'm bringing it up.

what i mean is that i've actually read on here that some of us are "putting mj on a pedestal." i think absolutely everybody agrees that the songs are "off" in some way, no matter which side you're on. Some explain that away as "stop putting mj on a pedestal, he can have off days where he doesn't sound like himself."

My argument is that sure, he can have off days, but he's the king of pop. saying he can have a day where he doesn't sound like himself or has breathing errors, or he sings some of these "lyrics" etc. is an underestimation of his skill. that's all.

 

[ivy]

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

My argument is that sure, he can have off days, but he's the king of pop. saying he can have a day where he doesn't sound like himself or has breathing errors, or he sings some of these "lyrics" etc. is an underestimation of his skill. that's all.

isn't this a little contradictory though? so he can have off days but he wouldn't make breathing errors on off days? aren't off days by definition the days that you are not perfect?

so in your opinion what is acceptable as an "off day" musical behavior?

 

[azsummergirl]

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

]Either you stand behind what you're claiming or you don't.
You can't try to convince us it would be Jason while at the same time stepping back and saying that you could be wrong and in that case it must be another impostor.

On all those previous pages of this thread and the in equivalent thread at Max you guys are trying to convince people on this planet it's Jason Malachi that would be singing these songs.
You're not just saying it wouldn't be Michael Jackson. You're going even further.
THAT'S A BIG AND IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE!!!

You have to defend your claim with the full consequences. No more dodging.

My side has always been clear. Whereas you, BUMPER_SNIPPET/Pentum/Kapital & Co., with all respect, are attaching all your hopes at the "Jason" dude.
And if that doesn't work out, you'll be considering to switch to another impostor to go with.

Sore spot.

the fatal flaw in this logic is that this is a michael jackson fan forum, not a jason malachi fan forum. We are people who listen to mj every day, love him, have all of his music, etc. Most of us are not as familiar with impersonators, why would we be?

So of course we can listen to a song and say, without doubt, that it's not michael jackson, someone we have grown up with and listened to a billion times. why would you expect us to have the same level of familiarity with jason malachi or any other impersonator? i don't know jason's voice beyond doubt. i DO know michael's. all i know is that it's not him.

do i think it's jason malachi? abso-lutely. it sounds exactly like him, to me. But if it turned out to be another impersonator, whatever. it makes no difference to me, i didn't spend my childhood familiarizing myself with different mj impersonators and subconsciously learning every nuance of their respective voices, like i did with michael. you know what i mean?

 

[azsummergirl]

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

isn't this a little contradictory though? so he can have off days but he wouldn't make breathing errors on off days? aren't off days by definition the days that you are not perfect?

so in your opinion what is acceptable as an "off day" musical behavior?

ooooh, sorry for the double-post, my bad

um, off day musical behavior would be like how he doesn't sound as "good" singing jam live on stage as he does on the actual album. he still sounds like michael jackson though.

unacceptable "off day behavior" is sounding like a different person.

and no, i don't think he would snort, even on an off day. never heard that happen before.

 

[Pentum]

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

AnnieRUOkay, listen closely with good speakers or headphones and not your laptop speakers: http://hulkshare.com/oxn2oifiys0h

By the way, Jason has never denied ANYTHING regarding the songs. He only said "I can not confirm or deny anything at this point".

 

[Aniram]

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

Isn't it just hearsay that he said that, Pentum? Isn't that what he supposedly told his old producer?

 

[samhabib]

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

Isn't it just hearsay that he said that, Pentum? Isn't that what he supposedly told his old producer?

Do you have a motive as to why his producer would say that?

 

[Anna]

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

We have never heard MJ snort before like in the Cascio tracks. Not on demos, not on any track, not live. But they turn up on these Cascio tracks that happen to sound like Malachi. And Malachi happens to do the kind of snorts that are on these tracks.
Having an off-day would not suddenly mean MJ's entire method of singing changed. That's just ridiculous.
Why do these tracks sound familiar to Malachi tracks and yet sound nothing like any MJ tracks we've heard before? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Arklove]

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

Because as I've said I'm willing to be proven wrong, not to mention if he'd came out and said it, it'd result in some legal action from Sony and The Estate. Because if he isn't the voice on the song, he'd be sued (can't think of the legal term at the moment, if someone were to claim the songs as their own), if there were to be none of that, it'd be safe to assume there would be some truth to it. But due to feelings towards the songs, denials, history between the parties ie. Michael and The Cascio's; And really no action toward the matter, I find it hard to believe they'd take such risk to fake these records.


The fact that he denied participation is only a small part of my belief, but to add to that, there's not much to support the theory that he did. Other than assumption amongst the fanbase and theories, there isn't anything that supports that he gained from this. There's also nothing that backs up him knowing or meeting these people (Cascio's/Sony), he seems to be doing the same thing he was a few years ago, in his musical career and personal life, so how can I assume that he has a reason to lie? When there isn't much to show for it.

And I'd love to hear the 'snort' comparison if I'd knew where it was.

Ok, but what I want to know is...You feel it's Michael singing these songs, right? Well, how can you believe that if you would believe JM if he came out and said it was him that sang the songs? If you believe that, then it's pretty safe to say that the voices are identical in the audio comparisons. Which you're not convinced of yet...

Actually, don't answer my question until you've listened to the snort comparison.

 

[samhabib]

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

Well, how can you believe that if you would believe JM if he came out and said it was him that sang the songs?

Exactly. How can the sound of the audio change depending on something that someone says?!?

 

[ivy]

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

By the way, Jason has never denied ANYTHING regarding the songs. He only said "I can not confirm or deny anything at this point".

why are you refusing the statement that came from his manager and continue to say "he said nothing"?

He said that he didn't sing a single note through his manager - a person that represents him. That's as valid as anything that comes straight out of his mouth.

 

[samhabib]

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

why are you refusing the statement that came from his manager and continue to say "he said nothing"?

He said that he didn't sing a single note through his manager - a person that represents him. That's as valid as anything that comes straight out of his mouth.

Any news on the court case that his manager promised against the hacker?

 

[Pentum]

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

why are you refusing the statement that came from his manager and continue to say "he said nothing"?

He said that he didn't sing a single note through his manager - a person that represents him. That's as valid as anything that comes straight out of his mouth.

You mean that incredible stupid (bogus?) statement he made after that Facebook hack? Hah! Why on earth would you just trust what his manager (we don't even know if he really is his manager right now) said? What, you think he would say "damn, this is true. he is the singer". Reminds me of Sony, "Sony said the songs are real = songs real".

Jason has NEVER denied ANYTHING regarding the songs. Let's all wait for him to say at least something himself.

 

[ivy]

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

Any news on the court case that his manager promised against the hacker?

my understanding is that they don't know the identity of the hacker. so no idea about what they are going to do.

You can put them into the same group with Jacksons "this is a fraud but I'm not gonna sue"

as Jackson's lack of legal action is said to be "acceptable", I guess lack of legal action on this one is also acceptable

You mean that incredible stupid (bogus?) statement he made after that Facebook hack? Hah! Why on earth would you just trust what his manager (we don't even know if he really is his manager right now) said? What, you think he would say "damn, this is true. he is the singer". Reminds me of Sony, "Sony said the songs are real = songs real".

Jason has NEVER denied ANYTHING regarding the songs. Let's all wait for him to say at least something himself.

hypothetical question : if he said something himself (denied it) what difference would it make?

 

[Pentum]

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

Nothing much. I'm just saying that he has never said anything about it which is correct.

 

[samhabib]

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

You can put them into the same group with Jacksons "this is a fraud but I'm not gonna sue"

And the Cascios (who have been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs), and Teddy Riley (who has been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs), and the Estate (who have been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs), and Sony (who have been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs).

Let's not forget them.

 

[kreen]

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

Isn't it just hearsay that he said that, Pentum? Isn't that what he supposedly told his old producer?

This isn't even that : this is what he supposedly told some moderator on another MJ forum, in the days following the "Breaking News" unveiling. This "statement" that doubters cling to is just air : we don't even know if it was said, and even if it was said, it actually tends to show that JM had nothing to do with the songs, because if he did, he would have signed a confidentiality agreement, and thus his answer would have been "I have nothing to do with these songs" -- even if that was a lie.

Besides, his "manager" told TMZ JM had nothing to do with the songs. And that's also what JM told the Estate's lawyer.

 

[Aniram]

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

I understand your point there, samhabib, but don't you think, in Sony and the Estates case and Teddy and Eddie's, they wouldn't sue people just because they say they believe the songs are fake with no evidence?

It's not like this is really being pushed in the media and anyone is being seriously defamed. It's a couple threads on some Michael Jackson message boards...

 

[samhabib]

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

I understand your point there, samhabib, but don't you think, in Sony and the Estates case and Teddy and Eddie's, they wouldn't sue people just because they say they believe the songs are fake with no evidence?

It's not like this is really being pushed in the media and anyone is being seriously defamed. It's a couple threads on some Michael Jackson message boards...

Sony and The Estate claim they have legal proof the songs are Michael Jackson. According to that, they have everything they need to sue Randy, Jermaine, Cory Rooney, Taryll Jackson, etc, etc.

So for anyone to try and point to the families lack of litigation, remember that Sony and The Estate have refused to take their proof to court.

 

[ivy]

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

And the Cascios (who have been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs), and Teddy Riley (who has been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs), and the Estate (who have been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs), and Sony (who have been slandered by the Jacksons and all the other public figures who have condemned the songs).

Let's not forget them.

I explained this to you didn't I?

You do not understand what is needed for a slander/ defamation lawsuit.

Saying bad things about someone isn't ENOUGH for a slander lawsuit. Stating your OPINION doesn't mean slander - it's protected under freedom of speech.

It has to be negative plus it has to hurt the reputation plus it has to cause harm. Public figures also need to prove "malice".

All of which require the scenario of Jackson's to know/believe the vocals to be legit but lie intentionally to say negative things with the predetermined aim to hurt the sales.

As you can see if they honestly believe the vocals to be not real, they cannot be sued as malice is not present.

Jackson's just mentioned their opinions without asking for any harm (boycott in this case) they are protected by the 1st amendment and freedom of speech.

Like it or hate it - this is the law.

Sony and The Estate claim they have legal proof the songs are Michael Jackson. According to that, they have everything they need to sue Randy, Jermaine, Cory Rooney, Taryll Jackson, etc, etc.

So for anyone to try and point to the families lack of litigation, remember that Sony and The Estate have refused to take their proof to court.

no that's not everything they need to sue for slander/ defamation - see above.

That's their defense for a consumer fraud lawsuit.


Edit : and let me give you the perfect example.

Recently In Touch magazine published a story about David Beckham cheating on his wife with a prostitute. David Beckham sued for defamation and his lawsuit is thrown out because he couldn't provide evidence that the story was published with malice.

In other words as long as In touch believed the story to be true and didn't intentionally create the story to cause harm to David Beckham - it's okay.

 

[Aniram]

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

Maybe that's why the family are scared to do anything?

Sony doesn't really need to do anything else to prove the tracks are real. They've basically explained everything they can.

You've got Malachi and his team denying it. You've got Eddie's entire story, showing his studio around, going into the shower where he recorded...

So Eddie got all hot and nervous when he found out camera crews were coming to his house so he quickly made up this bullshit story that he'd walk them to the shower to explain away the vocals as an 'excuse'? Sorry, but that doesn't work for me...

I don't know why Eddie would invite people to come film him in his house and go to lengths to explain how he worked with Michael, Michael did this and that, he loves Michael, misses Michael, etc. etc. So he doesn't have any handwritten notes? Big deal! There could be... I bet there are way more notes than made it into the booklet, definitely. Maybe they don't own them but own the songs? It's a possibility.

So you've got Eddie and this entirely logical scenario, you've got Sony hiring experts on the tracks, you've got Jason's team denying it, you've got NO ONE like Akon, Neff-U, or Lenny talking about this issue... I doubt Sony would really feel the need to go to court and prove anything else. It's not hurting anything.

I don't know why people think this controversy is actually hurting the album... It was basically the only promotion it got. :lol:

 

[samhabib]

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

I explained this to you didn't I?

You originally said it needed to involved 'damage', ie. hurt sales. Which the public comments have most DEFINITELY and PROVABLY had.

 

[samhabib]

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

I don't know why Eddie would invite people to come film him in his house and go to lengths to explain how he worked with Michael...

You don't know why someone would promote a product from which he financially benefits from? No... no idea...

 

[ivy]

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

You originally said it needed to involved 'damage', ie. hurt sales. Which the public comments have most DEFINITELY and PROVABLY had.

yes that's true . there has to be some sort of "harm/ damage".

Plus public figures (in this case Sony/ estate/ cascio's etc) also need to prove malice - which means an evil intentional and knowing act to cause harm.

See the David Beckham example I added?

Recently In Touch magazine published a story about David Beckham cheating on his wife with a prostitute. David Beckham sued for defamation and his lawsuit is thrown out because he couldn't provide evidence that the story was published with malice.

In other words as long as In touch believed the story to be true and didn't intentionally create the story to cause harm to David Beckham - it's okay.

so again for Cascio / Estate / Sony etc to sue Jackson's for defamation / slander you need the scenario of "Jackson's to know/believe the vocals to be legit but lie intentionally to say negative things with the predetermined aim to hurt the sales. "

similar to David Beckham situation if Jackson's happen to honestly think the vocals to be not legit and they just express their opinions without the goal to hurt anything (and they don't have it , they publicly showed support for other 7 songs on the album) , there isn't any grounds for the lawsuits you are proposing.

 

[Aniram]

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

@samhabib: Maybe a little made up story, but he did explain and show a lot, did he not? Why not just be like Akon and give a short interview? He must have written a little short story about what he wants people to believe happened, then memorized it, then prepared to have to recite it publicly.

 

[samhabib]

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

@samhabib: Maybe a little made up story, but he did explain and show a lot, did he not? Why not just be like Akon and give a short interview? He must have written a little short story about what he wants people to believe happened, then memorized it, then prepared to have to recite it publicly.

He still didn't explain enough though, hence he's just signed a book deal with Harper Collins. Ker-chingggg!!!

 

[Arklove]

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

@ Aniram - what exactly did he explain and show a lot of?

 

[Anna]

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

People who believe the tracks are genuine, how do you explain why all supposed audio evidence of MJ's involvement with these tracks has been destroyed. And apparently due to MJ's wishes. Does that sound like something MJ would ever do?

 

[MJJuniorSinceMW]

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

He still didn't explain enough though, hence he's just signed a book deal with Harper Collins. Ker-chingggg!!!

WRONG! But thats a common thing comin' out of your corner, isn't it?

Not Eddie has the book deal, it's Frank Cascio, who has the book deal.