Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

It's been awhile here, so I hope that there are still some members coming back to this thread.

The new discussion regarding the Cascio tracks has been around the credits.

Indeed, even though it is not necessary to specifically credit an artist on his album, I find it quite convenient that the lead vocals aren't credited on the Cascio tracks whatsoever.

However, on the cover of the album it says "previously unreleased vocal tracks". Now, vocal tracks can cover many things: background vocals, copy-pasted vocals, lead vocals, but not necessarily all of them at the same time.

The question is, was the specific omission "lead vocals" deliberately omitted, or is it a pure coincidence, knowing that Behind the Mask and Another Day Were specifically credited.

One can argue and say that on non-Cascio songs lead vocals aren't mention either. Indeed, but to such an argument I say that for those songs the specific lead vocals aren't the object of the controversy, so mentioning them or not doesn't change anything regarding the authencity.

Nevertheless, if one day the real singer on the Cascio tracks is debunked, wouldn't be quite convenient for SONY to say "look, we've never specifically credited the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks anyway"?

All in all, what is your opinion? DO you think that those credits were deliberately omitted in order to protect themselves or is it a coincidence?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Nevertheless, if one day the real singer on the Cascio tracks is debunked, wouldn't be quite convenient for SONY to say "look, we've never specifically credited the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks anyway"?
Click to expand...

I can assure to you that it won't be any "convenient" or provide any "protection" whatsoever to them.
 
ivy said:
I can assure to you that it won't be any "convenient" or provide any "protection" whatsoever to them.
Click to expand...

You love me


Can you elaborate. Wouldn't be enough for them to use the argument that they DID mention "previously unreleased vocals" instead of "lead vocals"?
 
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
You love me


Can you elaborate. Wouldn't be enough for them to use the argument that they DID mention "previously unreleased vocals" instead of "lead vocals"?
Click to expand...

no. the definition of vocals were explained in maxjax.

let me use real life examples.

maroon 5 it won't be soon before long album Adam Levine is credited with a general "vocals" on the booklet under his picture. No lead vocal credits / details is listed for songs. only additional back vocals by other singers are listed. as you can see from this example a general "vocals" credit covers all songs as well as lead vocals.

my favorite example pink - funhouse. Pink isn't credited even credited with "vocals". Only one song has the credit of "all vocals by pink". Rest of the songs list additional back vocals by other singers.

as you can see from the above examples : "vocals" credit isn't even needed in the case of a solo artist. As Funhouse is a Pink album sung by Pink - regardless of the lack of credits- similarly "Michael" album is a Michael Jackson album sung by "Michael Jackson". It's a reasonable expectation that Michael Jackson sings on the album. furthermore as we can see from Maroon 5 example "vocals" credit do cover lead + back harmonies. So Michael Jackson is not only the presumed and expected singer of the songs , he's also credited for it.

Of course you can argue about why he was explicitly credited in some songs and not in some and try to come to a meaning from it. but it don't matter in the legal sense. something interestingly in the pink album she's only credited by "all vocals pink" on one song but there are several other songs that doesn't list any additional background vocals and do not have this credit. Does it mean that those songs aren't "all Pink"?

In short no "we didn't say leads, we said vocals" isn't going to help them a bit, if this ever comes to the point of a lawsuit.
 
ivy said:
no. the definition of vocals were explained in maxjax.

let me use real life examples.

maroon 5 it won't be soon before long album Adam Levine is credited with a general "vocals" on the booklet under his picture. No lead vocal credits / details is listed for songs. only additional back vocals by other singers are listed. as you can see from this example a general "vocals" credit covers all songs as well as lead vocals.

my favorite example pink - funhouse. Pink isn't credited even credited with "vocals". Only one song has the credit of "all vocals by pink". Rest of the songs list additional back vocals by other singers.

as you can see from the above examples : "vocals" credit isn't even needed in the case of a solo artist. As Funhouse is a Pink album sung by Pink - regardless of the lack of credits- similarly "Michael" album is a Michael Jackson album sung by "Michael Jackson". It's a reasonable expectation that Michael Jackson sings on the album. furthermore as we can see from Maroon 5 example "vocals" credit do cover lead + back harmonies. So Michael Jackson is not only the presumed and expected singer of the songs , he's also credited for it.

Of course you can argue about why he was explicitly credited in some songs and not in some and try to come to a meaning from it. but it don't matter in the legal sense. something interestingly in the pink album she's only credited by "all vocals pink" on one song but there are several other songs that doesn't list any additional background vocals and do not have this credit. Does it mean that those songs aren't "all Pink"?

In short no "we didn't say leads, we said vocals" isn't going to help them a bit, if this ever comes to the point of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. I understand all this.

Now imagine a scenario in which somehow it is proved that MJ isn't the lead vocalist. Let's say his vocals are simply pasted from other demo sessions.
Parallely to these vocals another singer covers the most part of the songs. Wouldn't that be considered either as as a duet or featuring vocals by MJ which are included in the term "previously unreleased vocals"?

Now a subquestion. What legal grounds could SONY use if the Cascio lead singer is proven to be someone else?
 
Coool! Welcome back LOVE IS MAGICAL. Yes, my hardware is ready to match a software hahaha. We're crazy lol.
 
love is magical said:
:huggy:

You know I adore you and bumper.

Need to catch up what I missed now.
Click to expand...


Aww, that's so cute. Ivy is here too you know. She's been faithfully watching over this thread. Now she's extremely delighted that we're back, as she was mourning day and night hoping to see us back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top