Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

How does everyone feel about JM's ex producer making the statements about recording those songs with Malachi....

uke:

 

[Jesta]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

It's unnerving. Despite feeling Michael in these songs, if any concrete proof showed Malachi or any other impersonator, including much better ones, sing these songs than I'd say I was duped... And probably not listen to MJ for a long while due to being tricked so easily...

 

[Casey R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Surely that promotional paragraph from Oprah that states that Paris and Prince directly stated that the vocals on the album don't match what they heard, clears this whole issue up? Prince was almost 11 years old at the time they were at the Cascio's. I have nephews that age and they are extremely observant and tuned-in to their surroundings.

As if there weren't already a huge stack of evidence to suggest the Cascio's are lying, this should seal the deal.

With this knowledge, if you still believe the Cascio's, you are calling Prince Michael Jackson Jr a liar, and Paris too and I can not condone that. They were there. They have NO motive to lie. They are the main beneficiaries of the Estate regardless and always will be, so they have NO agenda.

You can call 3T liars if you want to. I've already explained how they have very little motive and are the nicest guys you could ever meet. Call Randy a liar if you want. Call LaToya a liar if you want. Say they have motives, whatever.

But this information takes it to another level entirely. Before, we had heard the kids didn't believe the songs were MJ, but we didn't know where that information came from. It was third party information that could have been filtered through any number of people.

But this, officially released, sanctioned paragraph from Oprah states that they said this directly, on camera.

It's not Michael on these songs. His children, who are old enough to know what they are talking about, stated this directly. This information alone should be enough, aside from the fact that the vocalist on the tracks sounds exactly like Jason and nothing like Michael.

I would like to see some of you explain why you think Michael's CHILDREN are wrong. Let's hear it.

 

[Daniel.San]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

People actually think "Stay" is Michael now?

Hmm..

http://www.twitvid.com/NXUWN

 

[Jesta]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

I wouldn't say Michael's children are lying, far from that. But how did Oprah know that they said that? Did she talk to them about it directly, or was she just saying what she said based on what was circulating around the internet at the time. Don't forget, Oprah's only interested in ratings, she'll exaggerate a LOT for her final season.

That's all I'll say on the matter on Michael's children, it's delicate ground to say the least.

 

[Casey R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

I wouldn't say Michael's children are lying, far from that. But how did Oprah know that they said that? Did she talk to them about it directly, or was she just saying what she said based on what was circulating around the internet at the time. Don't forget, Oprah's only interested in ratings, she'll exaggerate a LOT for her final season.

That's all I'll say on the matter on Michael's children, it's delicate ground to say the least.

It was an officially sanctioned promotional press paragraph sent out from Oprah and her team to promote the broadcast. Do you think they would just make it up? The paragraph makes it pretty clear.

Michael's son, Prince Michael, said this week that none of what he heard recorded then matches what he hears now on Michael, and that he believes the Cascio cuts were recorded posthumously by a Michael soundalike. Prince's sister, Paris, corroborated these claims--as did Michael's mother, Katherine, during an Oprah interview.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

How does everyone feel about JM's ex producer making the statements about recording those songs with Malachi....

It was completely damning. And the video featured the unprocessed acapella at it's correct tempo - something that NONE of the Sony employees provided - which still sounded all but identical to the finished, processed vocals.

What Tony Kurtis provided was completely damning. The vocals were the same vocals on the finished tracks just without the pitching and tuning. He obviously had access to the original vocal track. Which NONE of the Sony employees allowed us to hear.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

How does everyone feel about JM's ex producer making the statements about recording those songs with Malachi....

Tony Kurtis? His initial statement didn't say he recorded these songs with Malachi, his initial statement according to other members, were he could tell who it was based off the work he did with him. He also said that Malachi brought back all of his masters from Tony Kurtis, after they stopped working together. He said he had copies, never said they were these specific songs, he then put out a supposed "Breaking News master" which conflicted his initial statement. And his Breaking News master was proven to had been tampered with and the pitch was altered to sound more like Jason. His "master" was the original leaked acapella with an altered pitch. Trust that guy on your own accord.


I don't know how reliable Yahoo Music is either, but that story was also posted on TMZ, when the initial claim came out, there isn't any proof to say that the show was edited. I just find it funny, people quote the same tabloids when it fits their belief, but when it disputes it, it's nothing more than tabloid gossip.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

It was an officially sanctioned promotional press paragraph sent out from Oprah and her team to promote the broadcast. Do you think they would just make it up? The paragraph makes it pretty clear.

I would love to know why Oprah edited that out of her show.

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Surely that promotional paragraph from Oprah that states that Paris and Prince directly stated that the vocals on the album don't match what they heard, clears this whole issue up? Prince was almost 11 years old at the time they were at the Cascio's. I have nephews that age and they are extremely observant and tuned-in to their surroundings.

As if there weren't already a huge stack of evidence to suggest the Cascio's are lying, this should seal the deal.

With this knowledge, if you still believe the Cascio's, you are calling Prince Michael Jackson Jr a liar, and Paris too and I can not condone that. They were there. They have NO motive to lie. They are the main beneficiaries of the Estate regardless and always will be, so they have NO agenda.

You can call 3T liars if you want to. I've already explained how they have very little motive and are the nicest guys you could ever meet. Call Randy a liar if you want. Call LaToya a liar if you want. Say they have motives, whatever.

But this information takes it to another level entirely. Before, we had heard the kids didn't believe the songs were MJ, but we didn't know where that information came from. It was third party information that could have been filtered through any number of people.

But this, officially released, sanctioned paragraph from Oprah states that they said this directly, on camera.

It's not Michael on these songs. His children, who are old enough to know what they are talking about, stated this directly. This information alone should be enough, aside from the fact that the vocalist on the tracks sounds exactly like Jason and nothing like Michael.

I would like to see some of you explain why you think Michael's CHILDREN are wrong. Let's hear it.

I completely agree....Prince and Paris, I believe, would know Michael's voice in the most intimate of settings as well....Michael had to have sung to his children NUMEROUS times....

 

[Mundy]

Aniram thanks for the reply

Love is magical that's sweet, thank you :huggy:

Casey I have thought a lot about the fact that Michael took his vocals with him when his sessions with Will.i.am ended. From what I recall, Will.i.am said that was just the way they worked. He didn't specify if it was the way Michael usually worked. I guess it's likely but it would be interesting to know for sure. It would be easy to remember the melodies of the songs. The lyrics might be a bit harder. Chunks of lyrics would probably come back, chunks missing. I wonder if any of this is what happened :S

Arklove, logic and my ears weren't connecting at all either but if everything I'm gonna say is true, they might blend a little better for me now. It still wouldn't explain how they would have the nerve to go ahead with it but it does show that it's entirely plausible, imo.

I was just thinking about logic again. Sony would know the legal ramifications of releasing fake tracks, which, as it turns out aren't as great as we thought (the ramifications, I mean). Would the Cascios know? I'm sure it's not hard to find out. Junior/Ivy had that information about taking someone to court to prove something was fake. You would have to prove it was fake but they wouldn't have to prove it was real. Isn't that a win win for Sony? They can't be called out on what they (allegedly ) did. So with that in mind, I'm back to logic. (I did a blog post on this so I'm gonna copy parts of it)

Some people are defending the songs because they use logic instead of trusting their ears (at least, I think. I've seen a lot of posts where people believe the tracks are Michael but don't think it sounds like him). There was uproar when Breaking News streamed online. A lot of people changed their minds when the estate released a statement that did nothing to prove it’s Michael’s voice. They said they had tests done. Where are those results? There is not one piece of evidence available to prove Michael is singing on the songs. No voicemails, handwritten lyrics, video footage, photos of Michael in the basement studio of the Cascio’s home, nothing has been released. There is nothing to prove Michael even knew these songs existed! Isn’t that a little strange? Doesn’t it defy logic that we will believe what we are told without a scrap of proof? And to top it all off, Sony, the Cascio's, Jason Malachi, whoever, they're all completely safe! They are not and never will be obliged to give proof (according to that find by Junior/Ivy). I can't see why they would have any reason not to do it! (From a legal standpoint, not a moral one)

We all need to understand how law works and "innocent until proven guilty" concept.

As far as the legal perspective goes Sony/Estate/ Cascio's are innocent parties and this is a legit Michael Jackson album. If you are claiming the opposite (that they are lying about the vocSony/Eals, the vocals are of imposters etc) the burden of proof will be on you. state/Cascio's do not need to prove their innocence, other side has to be able to prove their guilt."
by Ivy

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Surely that promotional paragraph from Oprah that states that Paris and Prince directly stated that the vocals on the album don't match what they heard, clears this whole issue up? Prince was almost 11 years old at the time they were at the Cascio's. I have nephews that age and they are extremely observant and tuned-in to their surroundings.

As if there weren't already a huge stack of evidence to suggest the Cascio's are lying, this should seal the deal.

With this knowledge, if you still believe the Cascio's, you are calling Prince Michael Jackson Jr a liar, and Paris too and I can not condone that. They were there. They have NO motive to lie. They are the main beneficiaries of the Estate regardless and always will be, so they have NO agenda.

You can call 3T liars if you want to. I've already explained how they have very little motive and are the nicest guys you could ever meet. Call Randy a liar if you want. Call LaToya a liar if you want. Say they have motives, whatever.

But this information takes it to another level entirely. Before, we had heard the kids didn't believe the songs were MJ, but we didn't know where that information came from. It was third party information that could have been filtered through any number of people.

But this, officially released, sanctioned paragraph from Oprah states that they said this directly, on camera.

It's not Michael on these songs. His children, who are old enough to know what they are talking about, stated this directly. This information alone should be enough, aside from the fact that the vocalist on the tracks sounds exactly like Jason and nothing like Michael.

I would like to see some of you explain why you think Michael's CHILDREN are wrong. Let's hear it.

No valid explanation ever was brought to light. The only answer to your question coined by the believers is that the children were influenced, just like us doubters, by the Jackson family.

 

[Jesta]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

You know what? I've had an EXTREMELY bad day today, so I give up. I concede to the doubters. Despite what my ears are telling me, all the evidence everyone on here points towards the tracks being fake and I simply have no evidence apart from my own ears, as all of my theories have been shot down by everyone immediately. That's it, I must have been duped. Congrats, doubters! I do not deserve to listen to this man's music anymore. I'm gonna have to get rid of a lot of music on my phone and all the CDs on my shelf. I don't even deserve to be here anymore. Goodbye until I have a reason to ever return.

- Jesta

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Jesta, I don't see why you'd let them influence your belief. There's no proof for either side, and for one side, the best form of "proof" they have, denies being on the songs. No one seems to want to acknowledge the fact that Tony Kurtis' video wasn't unprocessed anything, it was the same exact acapella with an altered pitch. No such "press release" for the Oprah show surfaced anywhere, except for TMZ, there's no telling whether Yahoo copied the article from TMZ or what, but no one wants to seem to address that either.

Bottom line is, the issue all boils down to trust, that's it. Whether doubters wanna hear it or not, it's the truth. The only one who we'd all trust 100% isn't here to verify anything, that's the true source of the problem.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Jesta, I don't see why you'd let them influence your belief. There's no proof for either side, and for one side, the best form of "proof" they have, denies being on the songs. No one seems to want to acknowledge the fact that Tony Kurtis' video wasn't unprocessed anything, it was the same exact acapella with an altered pitch. No such "press release" for the Oprah show surfaced anywhere, except for TMZ, there's no telling whether Yahoo copied the article from TMZ or what, but no one wants to seem to address that either.

Bottom line is, the issue all boils down to trust, that's it. Whether doubters wanna hear it or not, it's the truth. The only one who we'd all trust 100% isn't here to verify anything, that's the true source of the problem.

You're claiming that a news outlet would fabricate a story about an actual TV interview days before the interview is televised knowing that they'd easily be proven wrong if the video didn't show what they reported? You're honestly contending that as a possibility? Like:

"Hey guys let's write a story about the kids telling Oprah that the songs are fake... even though there will be video footage available to prove our story wrong"???

That sounds plausible to you?

And their motive for doing that would be?

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

You're claiming that a news outlet would fabricate a story about an actual TV interview days before the interview is televised knowing that they'd easily be proven wrong if the video didn't show what they reported? You're honestly contending that as a possibility? Like:

"Hey guys let's write a story about the kids telling Oprah that the songs are fake... even though there will be video footage available to prove our story wrong"???

That sounds plausible to you?

And their motive for doing that would be?

Where's the source that it came from a news outlet? TMZ posted that story, and that's where the "press release" showed up at, in an TMZ article. Now the question is, how do you know the Yahoo article wasn't copy and pasted from TMZ? Like most tabloid rumors?


I'll wait for someone to show me a press release from ABC....

 

[bluesky]

Aniram thanks for the reply

Love is magical that's sweet, thank you :huggy:

Casey I have thought a lot about the fact that Michael took his vocals with him when his sessions with Will.i.am ended. From what I recall, Will.i.am said that was just the way they worked. He didn't specify if it was the way Michael usually worked. I guess it's likely but it would be interesting to know for sure. It would be easy to remember the melodies of the songs. The lyrics might be a bit harder. Chunks of lyrics would probably come back, chunks missing. I wonder if any of this is what happened :S

Arklove, logic and my ears weren't connecting at all either but if everything I'm gonna say is true, they might blend a little better for me now. It still wouldn't explain how they would have the nerve to go ahead with it but it does show that it's entirely plausible, imo.

I was just thinking about logic again. Sony would know the legal ramifications of releasing fake tracks, which, as it turns out aren't as great as we thought (the ramifications, I mean). Would the Cascios know? I'm sure it's not hard to find out. Junior/Ivy had that information about taking someone to court to prove something was fake. You would have to prove it was fake but they wouldn't have to prove it was real. Isn't that a win win for Sony? They can't be called out on what they (allegedly ) did. So with that in mind, I'm back to logic. (I did a blog post on this so I'm gonna copy parts of it)

Some people are defending the songs because they use logic instead of trusting their ears (at least, I think. I've seen a lot of posts where people believe the tracks are Michael but don't think it sounds like him). There was uproar when Breaking News streamed online. A lot of people changed their minds when the estate released a statement that did nothing to prove it’s Michael’s voice. They said they had tests done. Where are those results? There is not one piece of evidence available to prove Michael is singing on the songs. No voicemails, handwritten lyrics, video footage, photos of Michael in the basement studio of the Cascio’s home, nothing has been released. There is nothing to prove Michael even knew these songs existed! Isn’t that a little strange? Doesn’t it defy logic that we will believe what we are told without a scrap of proof? And to top it all off, Sony, the Cascio's, Jason Malachi, whoever, they're all completely safe! They are not and never will be obliged to give proof (according to that find by Junior/Ivy). I can't see why they would have any reason not to do it! (From a legal standpoint, not a moral one)

Mundy,

I think you misunderstood Ivy quote:
- what she's saying is the burden of the proof is on the doubters: until they are challenged in court , then they have to show proof.

 

[ivy]

It was an officially sanctioned promotional press paragraph sent out from Oprah and her team to promote the broadcast. Do you think they would just make it up? The paragraph makes it pretty clear.

No it wasn't an official promotional paragraph, it is just a story Yahoo Music wrote (using TMZ etc).

This is the official news release reported by AP from ABC webite dated Nov 2nd

ABC website link : http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=12026845

"CHICAGO — Katherine Jackson will discuss the death of her son, pop superstar Michael Jackson, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Harpo Productions said today that Winfrey’s interview with Jackson’s mother will air Nov. 8 on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Jackson’s father, Joe Jackson, and his three children, Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson, also will appear during a backyard visit taped for the episode.

Winfrey and Katherine Jackson filmed the interview at the family’s home in Encino, Calif. The Chicago-based production company says Katherine Jackson talks about the day her son died and reflects on his life as a childhood star.

Michael Jackson died unexpectedly in June 2009. He gave a famous interview to Winfrey in 1993 in which he first disclosed suffering from the skin condition vitiligo."

Furthermore let's compare

TMZ on Nov 3rd

As we have been reporting, Sony will be releasing a Michael Jackson album before Christmas, featuring 10 - 12 original tracks. We're told 5 of the tracks were recorded at the New Jersey home of record producer Eddie Cascio.

Yahoo Music on Nov 5th

Three to five of the 10-12 tracks on Michael, out December 14 on Sony, were allegedly recorded at the New Jersey home of producer Eddie Cascio in 2007,

TMZ Nov 3rd

Michael and his kids stayed at Cascio's family home for 4 months in 2007, when the tracks were recorded, along with remixes that were released on the Thriller 25 Album.

Yahoo Music Nov 5th

when Michael and his children stayed there for four months working on remixes for the 25th-anniversary reissue of Thriller.

TMZ Nov 3rd

"We're told Prince says he was upstairs at the Cascio's house when many of the tracks were recorded and was able to hear the music, and none of what he heard matches the Sony tracks. "

this is what Yahoo music writes 2 days later on Nov 5th

Michael's son, Prince Michael, said this week that none of what he heard recorded then matches what he hears now on Michael,

(almost exact wording of TMZ article)

TMZ Nov 3rd

The Jackson family believes the Cassio tracks in question were fakes -- sung by a Michael Jackson sound-alike

Yahoo Music Nov 5th

and that he believes the Cascio cuts were recorded posthumously by a Michael soundalike.

TMZ Nov 3rd

We're also told Paris is "adamant" -- she does not believe her dad's voice is on the tracks in question.

Yahoo Nov 5th

Prince's sister, Paris, corroborated these claims--as did Michael's mother, Katherine, during an Oprah interview.

As you can see Yahoo basically copied the story from TMZ (reworded it so it wouldn't be plagiarism) just adding "Oprah" into the mix.

edited to add: Oprah interview was done on October 9th. The "questionable vocals" information on media didn't start until October 19 (Roger Friedman) and RF didn't reveal until October 29th that 3T (and some Jackson's) were the ones that was against the songs. So Oprah would not be knowledgeable about this issue on October 9th. so the "vocals" wouldn't be a question that Oprah brings up.

By all accounts the discussion between the parties involved about these songs and whether to include them or not went till sometime into November. even 3T didn't start their public twitter posts about the vocals till Breaking News Streaming (Nov 7th)

So why would Katherine make a comment about the songs that might or might not be included on the album (as of October 9th) to Oprah?

 

[kreen]

Michael's son, Prince Michael, said this week that none of what he heard recorded then matches what he hears now on Michael, and that he believes the Cascio cuts were recorded posthumously by a Michael soundalike. Prince's sister, Paris, corroborated these claims--as did Michael's mother, Katherine, during an Oprah interview. Joe Jackson, Michael's dad, also protested the songs via a statement by his attorney.[/I]

Wait a minute here : this paragraph doesn't state that Prince and Paris made those claims to Oprah during the interview. It says that Katherine did. The idea that Prince and Paris also believe the songs to be fake comes from a different source, either TMZ or RF.

Secondly, if Prince DID say that "none of what he heard matches what was then recorded", isn't he finally proving that MJ DID record with the Cascios, and that there REALLY were MJ songs from those sessions? In that case, why would those actual songs be replaced with an impostor's vocals?

Third, assuming that Prince did say those things, isn't it likely that he was just surprised at the difference between the original vocals and the post-production work by Teddy Riley?

Four, kids ARE easily influenced, and even if Prince did say the tracks were fake, it would obviously not be sufficient proof of anything, especially since he was so young in 2007. If people don't agree with me on this, just ask yourself this : if Prince and Paris said tomorrow that the tracks are indeed real, would you all change your mind and finally believe it's MJ after all?

And five, if the whole Jackson clan is convinced the tracks are fake, why don't they go to court to prove it? If the songs on the album are not what MJ recorded, it will be easy to prove, if only by producing testimony from Prince. Why don't they do that?

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Great post, kreen.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Nice posts by both Ivy and Kreen. I hadn't noticed that in the initial paragraph until Kreen pointed it out.

 

[Mundy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Mundy,

I think you misunderstood Ivy quote:
- what she's saying is the burden of the proof is on the doubters: until they are challenged in court , then they have to show proof.

That makes more sense. I was wondering if there would be a loophole that obvious! Thank you

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

That makes more sense. I was wondering if there would be a loophole that obvious! Thank you

"never" obligated is a strong word. What I meant was as they are presumed to be "innocent" they do not have to prove their innocence (meaning that the vocals are legitimate). Unless they are challenged. If somebody sues them for fraud (faking the vocals) then their defense will be to back up their claims - the most definitive one being the expert reports that use established and generally accepted techniques to determine the authenticity.

 

[Casey R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Secondly, if Prince DID say that "none of what he heard matches what was then recorded", isn't he finally proving that MJ DID record with the Cascios, and that there REALLY were MJ songs from those sessions? In that case, why would those actual songs be replaced with an impostor's vocals?

We already covered this.

Bear in mind that Will.I.Am stated that, for security reasons, Will would leave the studio with the music multitracks on his hard drive, and Michael would leave with his vocal multitracks on his own hard drive.

I'm completely open to the possibility that Michael MIGHT have WRITTEN these songs, or at least parts of them. But, I do think if that's the case, that he did the same thing he did with Will and took the vocal files with him when he left.

Then, he passes, the Cascios still have the music and they remember the lyrics. Maybe they even still have any backing vocals recorded by other people like James Porte that were done at the same time. So they bring in someone like Malachi, teach him the lyrics and melodies and get him to do his best MJ impersonation.

Hence, no Michael vocals. In my own experience - adlibs are the final parts of the vocals that are recorded. That's how I work as a vocalist and so does every vocalist I know. So, if the songs weren't finished, then no adlibs would have been recorded in the first place, so they splice random ones in from older MJ songs.

 

[Aniram]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

I can just imagine:

"Malachi, let's face it. You have no talent whatsoever other than sounding like friggin' Michael Jackson.

Listen, fella, you listen good, ya see, you better take this deal with Sony and SING THE TRACKS and keep your MOUTH SHUT if ya know whats good for ya boy...

Riiight? We'll set you up. Come on... You have no originality, your album ain't selling crap... Come to the dark side. Live your dream and be Michael Jackson..."

Probably said by some mysterious Sony executive/dark industry friend.

Then Jason looks up and tilts his head, nodding, "Yeeaah! Wow, BE Michael Jackson. You're right, my album ISN'T selling. DEAL, Mr. creepy record industry man with lots of money."

edit:

I also just envisioned this scenario.

Sony maybe called Jason up and asked if he wanted to be a part of this new project, but not to say anything about it to the public yet, just come by the studio.

Jason comes to the studio one day, they explain that they want him to sing some parts for them, and he does what he's told like a good sheep. Then, when all of his vocals are recorded, they shove him up against the wall.

"YOU'RE GOING TO FORGET YOU CAME HERE TODAY, OKAY, JASON?" One producer screams in his face, spitting all over him.

"Okay, okay," Jason quivers.

"Get the hell outta here. Take this and NEVER SPEAK OF THIS AGAIN." The other producer tosses a large black bag Jason's direction. Looking in, Jason notices lots of hundred dollar bills.

"Scram, kid, or you want trouble?" Someone shouts from the back.

"...I'm leaving," Jason says with a glare. "Call me if you need any more done."

The producers smile with evil.

 

[ivy]

logical reasoning

okay Will.i.am said that he didn't have vocals of Michael for anything they recorded in his possession. As the estate wanted to release will.i.am songs (Branca had such statements in the Vibe magazine “We are finishing up the album as we speak. There will be some will.i.am, Teddy Riley and Rodney Jerkins songs.) and Will.i.am didn't allow such release we can logically conclude that the estate indeed recovered and have Michael's hard drives of music in their possession. (otherwise without the vocals all these debate about will.i.am songs would be impossible) So even if Michael hold on to his vocals for the Cascio songs the estate would have had them just as they had vocals for the Will.i.am songs.

 

[Casey R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Ivy, it was alleged when Michael died that things were stolen from his house. Latoya and others mentioned this.

Also, Branca may have stated that as a bargaining tactic. I happen to know for a fact that there are producers out there, INCLUDING Darkchild that haven't given everything they own to the Estate for fear of their work being tainted by horrible remixes. The EXACT same thing happened with Tupac's estate too (who I have worked with in the past).

The Estate only have master reels of a fraction of Michael's unreleased work, hence McClain having to "call around producers looking for songs". These guys are not experts regarding MJ's catalog. Far from it. Why do you think they had absolutely no idea that "This Is It" was already released by Sa-Fire and co-written by Anka? Fans have known that for years.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

It was a Rolling Stones story that actually claimed that La Toya stole/removed them - she denied it later on on 20/20 interview.

Frank Dileo said in that Rolling Stone interview that estate lawyers will ask Jackson's to return the items.

The same story said that stolen songs included Will.i.am, Akon and Neyo collaborations.

At that time Will.i.am's agent said that Will.i.am didn't have duplicates of his work with Michael - again another confirmation that he didn't have the vocals.

So it looks like regardless of what happened estate was able to recover the will.i.am track vocals, why would we assume that they couldn't recover Cascio tracks vocals (if Michael had them)?

(With La Toya's denial and Estate not making a fuss/ legal complaint about stolen items from Carolwood, I will assume that even if someone took them , they were returned to the Estate.)

Plus stealing vocals doesn't do anyone any good as no one can release them without Estate's approval. so even if someone has them their best bet will be to sell them to the estate.

 

[azsummergirl]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

i don't believe that this "can't be proved." i don't believe that we will never know the truth. we will. IF this is a fraud (which i obviously think it is) just think how many people would have to be involved with it. People know. At the very least, the impersonator singing the songs, whoever recorded the songs, and whoever agreed to move forward with them, knowing they were fake. this is definitely not unprovable, and i have faith that the truth will come out eventually.

really though, even if we never hear anything definite, it doesn't really matter. i have 100% confidence in my opinion, and that's good enough for me. i just wish this hadn't happened and i want justice for the fans and for michael's legacy.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Cascio Controversy Thread)

Just out of curiousity, what's more definitive than, "...My client did not sing a single note on the album."?