Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

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

ivy said:
No. see my post



and that's actually my point. Even though those artists and albums didn't have any of the vocals debate that we have here, they were still criticized , protested, complained about.

and that's why refer as the reality of posthumous release. Sony would have known that for one reason or another a group of hardcore fans wouldn't be happy with the album and the vocals debate and effect of this debate might not be really that significant for them.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your feedback Ivy. However, I think the authenticity debate regarding certain tracks on this album is not really comparable to the other cases you mentioned. It's not just an issue of right or wrong in terms of finishing/completing songs but whether or not the songs are completely fraudulent which is something altogether different. Moreover, the debate about this issue does not appear to be restricted to only hardcore fans based on the abundance of online comments regarding "fake" vocals and comments from some radio listeners in response to Monster. According to one poster, more than 50% of the responders for one Urban radio station felt that Monster was fake. We also need to consider the insider postings regarding Sony's plans for releasing Monster as the second single along with the much lower than expected album sales in key markets such as the US. Although Sony/the Estate must have expected that some hardcore fans wouldn't be happy with the album, I'm not sure that they anticipated this outcome.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ivy said:
I love this much definitive answers. there's a guide demo of beatles that has first verse sung 3 times (3 takes in one track). so if they had died before finishing the song you say there would be no need to cut it? Like I mentioned before there's a song that has vocals of Lennon that he recorded to a tape recorder - and that has been processed before release.

I'm curious about who came up with "demos absolutely won't need any work" logic.
Click to expand...

Where did I or anyone say anything about "demos absolutely won't need any work" logic?

Why Eddie didn't provide the original tapes without any "restoration" to Teddy and Sony? Where are those tapes? Destroyed? Michael could not order the tapes to be destroyed as the "restoration" was done after his death.

Honestly, to me, the work they did was more like "fabrication" than "restoration".



ivy said:
as I said I'm not privy to the materials he's mentioning. Plus that's what he hears. It's no different that what you say you hear. or pentum / kapital saying "it's 100 Jason". If I listen to the songs perhaps I'll think /hear 80% of the vocals are Michael's, how can you know? and that's what I meant by "over excited". Birchey gave us his opinion , his interpretation which has always been skeptical.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Kapital and I and Pentum and you have only heard the finished version on the ablum. We were not in that Pro Tool sessions. Birchey has seen things that we have not.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
Honestly, to me, the work they did was more like "fabrication" than "restoration".
Click to expand...

How do i put in one of those "clapping" emoticons? well i don't know how. so i'll just say: "mmmhmmmm, that is SO right."
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

:clapping: @arklove yep, that's the one. wow. that was easier than expected ;)
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

[



The difference is that Kapital and I and Pentum and you have only heard the finished version on the ablum. We were not in that Pro Tool sessions. Birchey has seen things that we have not.[/QUOTE]


It's still opinion and speculation. It's not proof
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
The difference is that Kapital and I and Pentum and you have only heard the finished version on the ablum. We were not in that Pro Tool sessions. Birchey has seen things that we have not.
Click to expand...

I'll quote Birchey

I have heard all 12 Cascio songs (Raw demos) and also seen pictures of the tracks being edited.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that "Pro tool sessions" is pictures showing how the tracks are edited.

Birchey's "who is singing" opinion is based on the demos he heard. the key words being "opinion" and "heard". I'll wait to make a final decision until I hear them myself.

and think for a minute: if Birchey had came here and said "I heard raw demos it's 100% Michael", would you change your opinion saying "well Birchey heard something that I didn't so I'll accept what he's saying and what I heard must be wrong". Answer honestly please.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

bluesky said:
[



The difference is that Kapital and I and Pentum and you have only heard the finished version on the ablum. We were not in that Pro Tool sessions. Birchey has seen things that we have not.
Click to expand...


It's still opinion and speculation. It's not proof[/QUOTE]


Did I say it's proof? Then, what the musicologists and Bruce Swedien said are also their opinions and speculations. Their assessment is not proof neither.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
The difference is that Kapital and I and Pentum and you have only heard the finished version on the ablum. We were not in that Pro Tool sessions. Birchey has seen things that we have not.
Click to expand...
Let's just say that I can vouch for Birchey as well.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

How come there are certain people who are allowed to hear these tracks? Why not show everyone?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
It's still opinion and speculation. It's not proof
Click to expand...


Did I say it's proof? Then, what the musicologists and Bruce Swedien said are also their opinions and speculations. Their assessment is not proof neither.[/QUOTE]

Well, you have to admit their opinions would carry more weights plus forensic musicalogist backup.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Seems like a few people were allowed to hear them and are either leaking them to people they feel are worthy enough or they have been allowed special access to something the rest of us don't.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Aniram said:
Seems like a few people were allowed to hear them and are either leaking them to people they feel are worthy enough or they have been allowed special access to something the rest of us don't.
Click to expand...

it's a conspiracy :cheeky: just kidding of course.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

ivy said:
I'll quote Birchey



My understanding is that "Pro tool sessions" is pictures showing how the tracks are edited.

Birchey's "who is singing" opinion is based on the demos he heard. the key words being "opinion" and "heard". I'll wait to make a final decision until I hear them myself.

and think for a minute: if Birchey had came here and said "I heard raw demos it's 100% Michael", would you change your opinion saying "well Birchey heard something that I didn't so I'll accept what he's saying and what I heard must be wrong". Answer honestly please.
Click to expand...

Honest answer: I appreciate his opinion and will most likely re-think this whole thing. If he came here and said "I heard the raw vocals and they are 100% Michael.", then I would just swallow the bitter pill and admit Sony and Teddy **** up the vocals with truck load of processing they did.

Ivy, I thought you know I'm not a "die hard doubter", I'm actually willing to accept Michael did sing parts of the songs and the difference is attributed to the excessive production tricks.

However (a big HOWEVER), there is absolutely no evidence of Michael's participation. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. I hope to see some type of evidence such as Michael's notes, tapes of Michael's conversations and voice messages, videos, etc... So far, NONE, NADA, ZIP....

Really, what are they afraid of? Are the evidence going to reveal how filmsy the nature of these songs truly are? Are the tapes going to reveal how little Michael's inputs are?

And, please don't tell me they don't need to turn in evidence unless they are challenged in court. They can't wait to show Michael's notes, voice message and conversaton for every other songs on the album. They are despearate to link all these posthumous songs to Michael. The more links the better.

Now, we have people who actually heard the demos saying that what they saw was a shameful cut and paste record production. They were trying to do whatever they can to make the songs sound Michael-ish by incorporating Michael's breathings, heehee's, aow's....

I'm sorry. These tracks are not legit according to what I have heard. Legally speaking, these tracks are Michael Jackson's. In essence, these tracks are shameful attempts to cash-in.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Aniram said:
Seems like a few people were allowed to hear them and are either leaking them to people they feel are worthy enough or they have been allowed special access to something the rest of us don't.
Click to expand...

I think I'm not the only who feels that, at this stage, we are just waiting for this stuff to be released here before we can move on in this debate with the new discoveries. We've been waiting for material like this for months!
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I know that this won't satisfy your thirst for proof Love, but Birchey said that "Water" was similar to the parts that MJ sang in "This Is It". The fact that it's similar and not exact seems to me that MJ did record at least "Water" and started spontaneously singing the lyrics to it (as it seems that there was hardly any rhythm to the songs originally) while actually getting water. It seems plausible to me.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

dusche02.jpg



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

bluesky said:
Did I say it's proof? Then, what the musicologists and Bruce Swedien said are also their opinions and speculations. Their assessment is not proof neither.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to admit their opinions would carry more weights plus forensic musicalogist backup.[/QUOTE]

how so?

do we know what they heard is what we heard?

have we seen the detail report by the forensic musicologists?

do we know how they performed their analysis?

do we know in what stage they got involved?

do we know whether they used the raw vocals (pre copy and paste take) to do their analysis?

at least birchey and nick came here and described how they came up with their opinions, do we know how bruce swedien came up with his conclusion?

actually, i don't really know what bruce swedien thinks. it's all according to the official statement from the estate.

i'm sorry. that official statement is just that, an official statement. it's not proof. i've learned not to trust the official words completely based on what I'm seeing around the world on a daily basis.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
Honest answer: I appreciate his opinion and will most likely re-think this whole thing. If he came here and said "I heard the raw vocals and they are 100% Michael.", then I would just swallow the bitter pill and admit Sony and Teddy **** up the vocals with truck load of processing they did.

Ivy, I thought you know I'm not a "die hard doubter", I'm actually willing to accept Michael did sing parts of the songs and the difference is attributed to the excessive production tricks.
Click to expand...

I know you are open minded. However for some people I think that they got overexcited and suddenly Birchey's opinion tried to be portrayed as "the evidence" or "fact". when actually Birchey and Nick have both said that it was speculation, not definitive and the issue will continue most likely forever.

so - not from you - but this somewhat "push to accept" is not needed. For example there are people on this thread that says "nothing will make them believe it's Michael" (and it's fine) so why am I required to believe or change my mind?

To me it's simple:

1. It gets leaked and I make my own mind one way or another
2. someone provides me "objective" analysis that includes more than "personal ears". (such as 3rd party music expert analysis - someone who didn't already formed an opinion)
3. it gets settled in a court of law

However (a big HOWEVER), there is absolutely no evidence of Michael's participation. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting. I hope to see some type of evidence such as Michael's notes, tapes of Michael's conversations and voice messages, videos, etc... So far, NONE, NADA, ZIP....
Click to expand...

well if you are accepting what Birchey is saying Michael is singing at least some some parts, so doesn't that settle his participation? and the only issue left is
- how much?
- is the additional vocals legit supporting vocals or imposter?

Really, what are they afraid of? Are the evidence going to reveal how filmsy the nature of these songs truly are?
Click to expand...

actually we discussed this yesterday with Birchey as well. This leak can show that perhaps they got nothing to hide. I mean think about TII and how it was kept under lock and key and nothing from the extra footage is leaked. Now you have raw demos and pictures of how the songs are being edited making rounds, so perhaps they have no need to hide them because there's nothing shady going on?

and if you argue fake /fraud, can you explain to me why people would leave evidence of such fraud lying around? (and if someone has the evidence of such fake/fraud why wouldn't they go to court/ media whatever?)

Now, we have people who actually heard the demos saying that what they saw was a shameful cut and paste record production. They were trying to do whatever they can to make the songs sound Michael-ish by incorporating Michael's breathings, heehee's, aow's....
Click to expand...


and was that a secret? Teddy already mentioned that. This exact words "The oohs, vocal attacks, fxs are samples to finish the songs"

let's remind more of what Teddy said

"The vocal yes I feel they are MJ vox...they are very processed. The vocals I was given to me from the Cascios was all I had to work with. "

"I remix, made the tracks different from what they had which would have been unacceptable"

"James is only on the chorus. I have james tracks."

"trust it is mj. Yes the f-ing cascios processed the voice. Still is michael."

"The oohs, vocal attacks, fxs are samples to finish the songs"

"The fact is they're heavily processed...meaning Mj vox were melodyne heavy. Melodyne is much like autotune."

" Based on the out takes that i've heard i can bet my life on everything i'm saying."

"They do have a few. "

"Did you have to copy vocal arrangements to complete the songs? Or were vocals completed by Michael himself? A- No MJ did them all himself"
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Aww Korgnex, did you get that photo as a bonus gift from Tak? :D
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

love is magical said:
You didn't read my post in its entirety, or you just ignored the point I made.

I said it doesn't matter the Cascios hired a soudalike or not. The moment they decided to turn in those extremely inconsitent "demos" or "snippets" in such low quality to Sony. They betrayed Michael. As an aspiring music producer and Michael's apprentice, Eddie knew in his heart his works with Michael were not releasable unless excessive manipulations and processings are done. The end products will never live up to the standards that people should uphold.

Whether an impersonator is hired or not, we can all agree the vocals are being processed to death. Parts of multiple takes pasted together, Michael's past songs were sampled here and there... The way they handled the songs is far from respectful.

A fraud cannot be proven now. So, I don't blame Eddie for fraud. However, I do blame him for betrayal.
Click to expand...

Point out where I said their actions are justified. What I said was, you can't blame them and accuse them of things that doesn't have any supporting proof, such as "The Cascio's hired Jason Malachi", like a certain member is saying. The dates don't add up, the dates that we've been given from the register date, to when they were sold, to when they were mixed, all points to this stuff happening long after the tracks were handed over to Sony. I never said they weren't guilty of betrayal, I never said anything of the sort, I just said you can't blame them for hiring Malachi, when there's nothing to support it.

Unless the Cascio's sold them several retakes of the same lines over and over again, and several ad-libs from past songs, for 12 whole tracks, which I highly doubt.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I find it amazingly incredible that MJ's fans, no matter what evidence you show them that those songs were fabricated, they accept them as MJ's songs and defend the Cascios.

After reading Birchey's info of butchering and fabricating those songs with all those dissecated audio files, no matter if it's an impostor or --less probably-- Michael from different demo sessions which have nothing to do with the final product on the album, I wouldn't tend to call "non-doubters" any more by that name or by the name of "believers", but by the name of "Cascio defenders no matter what".

Coming from a MJ fan, isn't it outraging to read comments defending the Cascios' and Sony's practices using Birchey's opinion such as "some of the audios were sung by MJ"! Some?! On a MJ album? And that should be acceptable? After all what MJ offered to us, including his life, I should accept those butchered songs fabricated by a bunch of betrayers? And on top of that there are people defending rather than questioning those practices? Where are we? In a MJ forum or in the Cascio forum?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Birchey offered his opinion, why don't you understand that? His opinion based on his findings. We're just supposed to take his opinion as gospel now because you feel the same way? Sorry, but that's not the way things work. No one is defending anyone, we're offering perfectly reasonable explanations. But because you don't agree, we're no longer "believer's" but "Cascio defenders"? Seriously, for one, the several takes of lines indicated to him that the songs aren't Michael, but on the another hand, in an artists opinion, it's common studio practice to retake several lines, especially for a pop act. People agree that parts of these songs aren't Michael, but they aren't impersonators either, they're exactly who they're credited to, James Porte, but because we believe that that makes us less fans than you? Grow up....
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

My opinion is my opinion and of course people with the same evidence will probably come to a different conclusion.

But here are a couple of Facts, which we pretty much know already, but I will relay them from what I have seen, ignoring anything mentioned before.

FACT: The vocals have been heavily manipulated, and were manipulated before the final mixes were complete, ALL the tracks on "Michael" have been sped up.

FACT: Several songs contain many Lead vocal tracks, infact one song has 3 Lead vocal tracks ALL sung seperatly.

FACT: Some vocals are clipped, which means they were recorded too loud, whilst some are not

FACT: There are OTHER singers on these tracks BUT only on backing vox, other than James Porte

FACT: Layer upon Layer of MJ adlibs are added to the tracks, some real from MJs other music some questionable, there isn't just one track of ad-libs too, there are several used on some songs.

FACT: There is an unused MJ beatbox on the original Monster cut, it is made of using 7 different MJ vocal tics to create the beatbox

FACT: I am not wearing trousers at this moment!

Joking aside, its pretty clear these songs have been messed with so badly, even before Teddy riley got them, or possibly Sony for that matter.

Another thing is Taryll said he only heard one vocal for the songs, Teddy said he had one vocal for some songs and several for other, thing is there are more than one vocal on every song, be it backing vox, ad-libs, or grunts and so on.

Problem here is what the hell have the Cascios got and why wasn't all this provided to Sony, Teddy, the Estate??? I mean each song is only gonna be released once, they got and are getting paid whats to lose, why not provide the best material possible, why hold so much back? What exactly do they have to hide?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
I find it amazingly incredible that MJ's fans, no matter what evidence you show them that those songs were fabricated, they accept them as MJ's songs and defend the Cascios.

After reading Birchey's info of butchering and fabricating those songs with all those dissecated audio files, no matter if it's an impostor or --less probably-- Michael from different demo sessions which have nothing to do with the final product on the album, I wouldn't tend to call "non-doubters" any more by that name or by the name of "believers", but by the name of "Cascio defenders no matter what".

Coming from a MJ fan, isn't it outraging to read comments defending the Cascios' and Sony's practices using Birchey's opinion such as "some of the audios were sung by MJ"! Some?! On a MJ album? And that should be acceptable? After all what MJ offered to us, including his life, I should accept those butchered songs fabricated by a bunch of betrayers? And on top of that there are people defending rather than questioning those practices? Where are we? In a MJ forum or in the Cascio forum?
Click to expand...

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

I have a question Birchey, the ProTools session where you discovered all of this, was that what was sent to Sony by the Cascio's, factually? Or just a really good, educated guess?
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

AnnieRUOkay89 said:
I have a question Birchey, the ProTools session where you discovered all of this, was that what was sent to Sony by the Cascio's, factually? Or just a really good, educated guess?
Click to expand...

its a guess based on the fact that Teddy has said he didn't receive so much, because there IS so many vocals.
 
Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

@AnnieRUOkay89, let's for one moment forget about your experience in a studio. Is the way these tracks are handled acceptable to you, coming from a Michael Jackson fan's POV?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top