Michael - The Great Album Debate

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Fyi, Smooth says Monster will be the 3rd single released according to his source at Sony. Let's help they are working to provide more evidence.

What evidence can you show that Michael sings the line "tooo bad" and the "stalking me" phrase? Not to mention all the rest of Michael's supposed voice that our ears can't hear at all.

 

[samhabib]

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

.
The other family seek to make a profit but only (in my opinion) in a desperate need for kudos & fame.

Right. But their intention is, ultimately, the same. 'Money, money, money!'

And, worse than the Arvizos, they've done so over Michael's dead body. Which is the one thing that makes it much worse, to me.

Of course people won't remember in years to come. But the intention of the participating parties IS the same. And over Mike's dead body... even worse. *

 

[ivy]

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

Because, comparing the Cascio's to the Arvizo's & Chandlers is utterly ridiculous, IMO.

Comparing the Cascios to the Arvizos is absolutely legitimate.

Nobody says it's same. The point here is to say that the conspiracy against Michael did exist and do exist. Each case is different of course. But involving several people in a conspiracy is totally plausible.

Comparing the cases isn't ridiculous. It just shows some similarities as far as some relationships Michael had with people who framed him.

No, it's not ridiculous - but it is flawed.

I too will go with "flawed" comparison in this case.

First of all - is conspiracy possible? - Yes of course

But let's look the comparison here.

Time - Chandlers met Michael mid 1992, accusations came late 1993 - 2 year time period. Arvizo's first contact with Michael was mid 2000 - accusations came in 2003 - 3 year time period. Cascio's maintained a 25 year friendship with Michael. So it's obvious that the length, depth of their relationship and their loyalty towards Michael isn't comparable to Chandler's and Arvizo's.

Fact vs Alleged - It's factual information that Chandler's / Arvizo's accused Michael, and pursued civil/criminal legal venues against him. However anything against Cascio's is alleged with no proof.

I mean all the people's hate towards Cascio's is based on "they can't hear Michael on the songs" and therefore "they must be trying to profit by faking stuff" - a personal opinion. For the sake of the argument for a moment let's assume that the vocals are indeed faked - can you in 100% certainty say that the Cascio's are the ones that faked them?

For example I have seen people coming up with scenarios that "Jason Malachi unknowingly provided vocals and then signed over the rights and a confidentiality agreement with the record company and therefore cannot talk". (interestingly although some people strongly believe Jason provided the vocals, I don't see an anger towards him for participating in such a heinous act. It's somewhat excused. all the posts I have seen is like "It's Jason" and there's no post that says "how dare Jason does such thing".)

So couldn't it be a possibility that Cascio's indeed turn in legit vocals (in low quality and limited amount) and that got "modified / edited, supported (aka faked)" by the record company and they are bound by some sort of agreement? Correct me if I'm wrong but we haven't heard any participation on the finishing of the songs by Cascio's - they gave the songs to Sony - Sony gave the songs to the professional producers. and the vocals could have been modified/faked at any point from Cascio's house to the arrival of the album to the stores.

to be clear - it's okay to question Cascio's actions, motivations, possible scenarios. but it's also important to remember the difference between "alleged" and "proven".

 

[donalb]

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

What evidence can you show that Michael sings the line "tooo bad" and the "stalking me" phrase? Not to mention all the rest of Michael's supposed voice that our ears can't hear at all.

That's a very good question. So far, neither the Estate or Sony has convinced me that these vocals are indeed "100% Michael" as they have claimed.

 

[love is magical]

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

I too will go with "flawed" comparison in this case.

First of all - is conspiracy possible? - Yes of course

But let's look the comparison here.

Time - Chandlers met Michael mid 1992, accusations came late 1993 - 2 year time period. Arvizo's first contact with Michael was mid 2000 - accusations came in 2003 - 3 year time period. Cascio's maintained a 25 year friendship with Michael. So it's obvious that the length, depth of their relationship and their loyalty towards Michael isn't comparable to Chandler's and Arvizo's.

Fact vs Alleged - It's factual information that Chandler's / Arvizo's accused Michael, and pursued civil/criminal legal venues against him. However anything against Cascio's is alleged with no proof.

I mean all the people's hate towards Cascio's is based on "they can't hear Michael on the songs" and therefore "they must be trying to profit by faking stuff" - a personal opinion. For the sake of the argument for a moment let's assume that the vocals are indeed faked - can you in 100% certainty say that the Cascio's are the ones that faked them?

For example I have seen people coming up with scenarios that "Jason Malachi unknowingly provided vocals and then signed over the rights and a confidentiality agreement with the record company and therefore cannot talk". (interestingly although some people strongly believe Jason provided the vocals, I don't see an anger towards him for participating in such a heinous act. It's somewhat excused. all the posts I have seen is like "It's Jason" and there's no post that says "how dare Jason does such thing".)

So couldn't it be a possibility that Cascio's indeed turn in legit vocals (in low quality and limited amount) and that got "modified / edited, supported (aka faked)" by the record company and they are bound by some sort of agreement? Correct me if I'm wrong but we haven't heard any participation on the finishing of the songs by Cascio's - they gave the songs to Sony - Sony gave the songs to the professional producers. and the vocals could have been modified/faked at any point from Cascio's house to the arrival of the album to the stores.

to be clear - it's okay to question Cascio's actions, motivations, possible scenarios. but it's also important to remember the difference between "alleged" and "proven".

First, I really really think the word "hate" is being used way too often and too lightly. Nobody here "hates" the Cascios. Is questioning Cascio's motives and listing possible scenarios the same as hate? Not according to me. The recent discussion has been done in such a calm and reasonable manner. No one here maliciously attacks the Cascios. We discuss our doubts and share our opinions. No where are we spreading hatred toward any family.

I don't even hate the Chandlers or the Arvizos. Am I disgusted by their behaviors? Of course. But, I never wish anything bad upon them. The damage is done. We cannot reverse time. I just hope one day justice will be served.

How is comparing the Cacios to the Chandlers or the Arvizos hateful? We didn't say the Cacios are proven of any wrongdoing. Again, no one here makes up lies. The worst case scenario, we are speculating.

Second, okay, let's assume the Cascios didn't "fake" any vocal. The Cascios turned in 100% genuine vocals. Sony is the one who modified most of the songs with other's vocals. As someone who shares writing and production credit, should Eddie Cascio at least raise some concerns after hearing the final version of the songs? Did he need to remain his silence? So, he agreed with Sony's approach. My point is Eddie Cascio simply cannot say "No, I'm not responsible for what Sony does. I gave them the tapes. End of."

 

[ivy]

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

First, I really really think the word "hate" is being used way too often and too lightly. Nobody here "hates" the Cascios. Is questioning Cascio's motives and listing possible scenarios the same as hate? Not according to me. No one here maliciously attacks the Cascios. We discuss our doubts and share our opinions. No where are we spreading hatred toward any family.

We didn't say the Cacios are proven of any wrongdoing. Again, no one here makes up lies. The worst case scenario, we are speculating.

I wouldn't combine everyone into a "we". Yes there are some "doubters" who do not "hate" Cascio's but there are also "doubters" who "hate" Cascio's and present their scenarios "as proven facts" as their "ears tell them so" and "nobody and nothing could convince them otherwise" therefore "they should be right about their conclusion".

So if "hating Cascio's" doesn't apply to you , you can simply ignore it.

Second, okay, let's assume the Cascios didn't "fake" any vocal. The Cascios turned in 100% genuine vocals. Sony is the one who modified most of the songs with other's vocals. As someone who shares writing and production credit, should Eddie Cascio at least raise some concerns after hearing the final version of the songs? Did he need to remain his silence? So, he agreed with Sony's approach. My point is Eddie Cascio simply cannot say "No, I'm not responsible for what Sony does. I gave them the tapes. End of."

Okay but seen my point about Jason Malachi above? Why not say the same about Jason Malachi then? The explanation was "he sang the vocals, gave up his intellectual property rights and signed a confidentiality agreement and therefore cannot talk". Why wouldn't it possible for Eddie to "while selling the songs to the record company he signed an agreement (confidentiality / intellectual whatever) with them , didn't knew what was going to happen and now he's between a rock and a hard place and could not talk"?

Why would the record company be able to "buy and silence Jason Malachi" , "get Teddy Riley and several other people lie on record", "buy expert reports", "make it impossible for Jacksons to pursue a lawsuit", "get Oprah plug the album/ ignore the controversy due to their connections" and not be able to "control/silence" Cascio's?

 

[samhabib]

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

For the sake of the argument for a moment let's assume that the vocals are indeed faked - can you in 100% certainty say that the Cascio's are the ones that faked them?

For example I have seen people coming up with scenarios that "Jason Malachi unknowingly provided vocals and then signed over the rights and a confidentiality agreement with the record company and therefore cannot talk". (interestingly although some people strongly believe Jason provided the vocals, I don't see an anger towards him for participating in such a heinous act. It's somewhat excused. all the posts I have seen is like "It's Jason" and there's no post that says "how dare Jason does such thing".)

So couldn't it be a possibility that Cascio's indeed turn in legit vocals (in low quality and limited amount) and that got "modified / edited, supported (aka faked)" by the record company and they are bound by some sort of agreement? Correct me if I'm wrong but we haven't heard any participation on the finishing of the songs by Cascio's - they gave the songs to Sony - Sony gave the songs to the professional producers. and the vocals could have been modified/faked at any point from Cascio's house to the arrival of the album to the stores.

Nice try but, indeed, you are wrong. Here's Eddie talking shit about how great the songs are, how great 'Michael's' is and how great Teddy 'which street do you want to work on' Riley is:

"They're gonna love the music, because it speaks for itself," Eddie Cascio, who is credited as a songwriter on "Breaking News," told MTV News. "Michael sounds great. The songs are great. The production sounds great. Teddy Riley did a phenomenal job finishing off the songs. The quality and production are incredible."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/16...oducers-defend-posthumous-michael-album.jhtml

 

[samhabib]

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

Why wouldn't it possible for Eddie to "while selling the songs to the record company he signed an agreement (confidentiality / intellectual whatever) with them , didn't knew what was going to happen and now he's between a rock and a hard place and could not talk"?

Because he's talked plenty. "Michael sounds great. The songs are great. The production sounds great." That's not vague, is it? It's pretty cut and dry.

 

[love is magical]

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

I wouldn't combine everyone into a "we". Yes there are some "doubters" who do not "hate" Cascio's but there are also "doubters" who "hate" Cascio's and present their scenarios "as proven facts" as their "ears tell them so" and "nobody and nothing could convince them otherwise" therefore "they should be right about their conclusion".

So if "hating Cascio's" doesn't apply to you , you can simply ignore it.




Okay but seen my point about Jason Malachi above? Why not say the same about Jason Malachi then? The explanation was "he sang the vocals, gave up his intellectual property rights and signed a confidentiality agreement and therefore cannot talk". Why wouldn't it possible for Eddie to "while selling the songs to the record company he signed an agreement (confidentiality / intellectual whatever) with them , didn't knew what was going to happen and now he's between a rock and a hard place and could not talk"?

Why would the record company be able to "buy and silence Jason Malachi" , "get Teddy Riley and several other people lie on record", "buy expert reports", "make it impossible for Jacksons to pursue a lawsuit", "get Oprah plug the album/ ignore the controversy due to their connections" and not be able to "control/silence" Cascio's?

Didn't you ask people not to generalize? Aren't you generalizing when you said "I mean all the people's hate towards Cascio's is based on "they can't hear Michael on the songs" and therefore "they must be trying to profit by faking stuff" - a personal opinion."

I still don't understand where you get the sense of hatred from? Yes, some here are convinced that the Cascios tracks are fake based on what their own ears heard. Still, how's that hatred toward the Cascios? It's more like frustration. I haven't come across a Cascio hater here.

Granted, there were some very heated moment when the songs are released. Some might have used very harsh terms on the Cascios, which is understandable. Such harsh terms are being thrown to the Jackson family day in and day out. Somehow, it's more justifiable to call the Jackson family names. The double standard cannot be more obvious.

Quote "Why would the record company be able to "buy and silence Jason Malachi" , "get Teddy Riley and several other people lie on record", "buy expert reports", "make it impossible for Jacksons to pursue a lawsuit", "get Oprah plug the album/ ignore the controversy due to their connections" and not be able to "control/silence" Cascio's?"

Isn't it the whole point Bumper is trying to make? A scheme like this is possible. Eddid Cascio can very well be part of it. The following two scenarios are possible:

First, Eddie Cascio is silent because he chose to be.

Second, Eddie Cascio is silenced by Sony.

 

[Jesta]

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

Eddie could've signed one of those agreements that Ivy detailed, basically stopping him saying anything negative about the songs. Or perhaps he personally thinks Michael does sound great. I'm still going by the "he wasn't seriously recording because he was at a friend's house" argument.

 

[ivy]

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

It's not as cut and dry as you sound it out to be.

Because you go with the assumption of the only possibility is a "confidentiality agreement that prevents him from speaking at all" but how about a "purchase agreement that came with the clause to positively promote the songs"? (see Mann & KJ agreement for example that has promotion and appearance requirements). He could be very well contractually bound to promote the album.

Didn't you ask people not to generalize? Aren't you generalizing when you said "I mean all the people's hate towards Cascio's is based on "they can't hear Michael on the songs" and therefore "they must be trying to profit by faking stuff" - a personal opinion."

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I didn't mean "all people(doubters) hate Cascio's" , I meant "all of the hate against Cascio's comes from the vocal controversy".

I haven't come across a Cascio hater here.

I did. Thread history shows cleaning due "insults / hate against Cascio's".

Such harsh terms are being thrown to the Jackson family day in and day out. Somehow, it's more justifiable to call the Jackson family names. The double standard cannot be more obvious.

see 3 strike rule in regards to insults against Jackson's

Isn't it the whole point Bumper is trying to make? A scheme like this is possible. Eddid Cascio can very well be part of it. The following two scenarios are possible:

First, Eddie Cascio is silent because he chose to be.

Second, Eddie Cascio is silenced by Sony.

and that my whole point as well. if two scenarios are possible then why are we comparing Cascio's to the likes of Arvizo's and Chandlers?

 

[love is magical]

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

Nice try but, indeed, you are wrong. Here's Eddie talking shit about how great the songs are, how great 'Michael's' is and how great Teddy 'which street do you want to work on' Riley is:

"They're gonna love the music, because it speaks for itself," Eddie Cascio, who is credited as a songwriter on "Breaking News," told MTV News. "Michael sounds great. The songs are great. The production sounds great. Teddy Riley did a phenomenal job finishing off the songs. The quality and production are incredible."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/16...oducers-defend-posthumous-michael-album.jhtml

I cannot disagree more. So, he's not silent afterall.

 

[samhabib]

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

It's not as cut and dry as you sound it out to be.

Because you go with the assumption of the only possibility is a "confidentiality agreement that prevents him from speaking at all" but how about a "purchase agreement that came with the clause to positively promote the songs"? (see Mann & KJ agreement for example that has promotion and appearance requirements). He could be very well contractually bound to promote the album.

So what does that make him? If he believes the songs are fake and he's being paid to positively promote them? What does that make him? In my estimation that makes him a prostitute. Anyone who is 'bought' is no different to a prostitute, in my eyes.

And to do that to a friend who has recently died, under mysterious circumstances, with a court case still pending? Wow...

What does that make him in your estimation?

 

[Jesta]

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

It doesn't mean that he believes the songs are fake, it just means he can't speak out over any bad mixing and editing done by Teddy.

 

[azsummergirl]

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

Fyi, Smooth says Monster will be the 3rd single released according to his source at Sony. Let's help they are working to provide more evidence.

lol, i don't care what "evidence" they come up with.

 

[ivy]

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

So what does that make him? If he believes the songs are fake and he's being paid to positively promote them? What does that make him? In my estimation that makes him a prostitute. Anyone is 'bought' is no different to a prostitute, in my eyes.

And to do that to a friend who has recently died, under mysterious circumstances, with a court case still pending? Wow...

What does that make him in your estimation?

My scenario was like

- The songs were purchased from him with an agreement that had a promotion and appearance clause.

- somehow / someway in the middle song/vocals are modified

- he's left in a rock and a hard place

I cannot disagree more. So, he's not silent afterall.

again "confidentiality agreements" is not the only legal agreement out there. Most artistic deals will have a promotion and appearance clause.

I mentioned it before that I worked with a national pop-rock band and that they had issues with the record company and satisfied their deal with them to get out of the contract in a friendly manner.

They released an "easy listening" album as the record company wanted and promoted it with a smile and statements of happiness and concerts simply because their contract called for another album, 3 months participation to active promotion and a certain number of performances. It wasn't because they wanted or liked to do it, it was because they contractually had to do it. It happens.

------------------------
I'll copy this here as well

Didn't you ask people not to generalize? Aren't you generalizing when you said "I mean all the people's hate towards Cascio's is based on "they can't hear Michael on the songs" and therefore "they must be trying to profit by faking stuff" - a personal opinion."

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I didn't mean "all people(doubters) hate Cascio's" , I meant "all of the hate against Cascio's comes from the vocal controversy".

I haven't come across a Cascio hater here.

I did. Thread history shows cleaning due "insults / hate against Cascio's".

Such harsh terms are being thrown to the Jackson family day in and day out. Somehow, it's more justifiable to call the Jackson family names. The double standard cannot be more obvious.

see 3 strike rule in regards to insults against Jackson's

Isn't it the whole point Bumper is trying to make? A scheme like this is possible. Eddid Cascio can very well be part of it. The following two scenarios are possible:

First, Eddie Cascio is silent because he chose to be.

Second, Eddie Cascio is silenced by Sony.

and that my whole point as well. if two scenarios are possible then why are we comparing Cascio's to the likes of Arvizo's and Chandlers?

 

[samhabib]

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

- he's left in a rock in a hard place

My heart bleeds. Let's just hope the millions are enough to allow him a good night sleep.

 

[love is magical]

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

My scenario was like

- The songs were purchased from him with an agreement that had a promotion and appearance clause.

- somehow / someway in the middle song/vocals are modified

- he's left in a rock in a hard place




again "confidentiality agreements" is not the only legal agreement out there. Most artistic deals will have a promotion and appearance clause.

Thanks for the info on promotion and appearance clause.

Say, you scenario is what truly happened. Allow me to make one hypothetical assumption - Eddie Cascio is disgusted by the end result of Sony's production.

Is there any remedy Eddie Cascio can take? Is he really left in a rock in a hard place? Any action he could take to prevent the track from releasing?

 

[Jesta]

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

If Eddie is disgusted by the end result of his songs, he would have to tackle/sue SONY, and while this case would fair well against them, I doubt that SONY would lose, they're merely too powerful.

 

[ivy]

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

Is there any remedy Eddie Cascio can take? Is he really left in a rock in a hard place? Any action he could take to prevent the track from releasing?

The purchase agreement will be the "authorization" for the use and release of the songs - so no he wouldn't be in a place to stop the release.

If after the release he discovered / suspected fake vocals, he would have been in the same boat with everyone - the one with the burden of proof.

 

[samhabib]

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

If after the release he discovered / suspected fake vocals, he would have been in the same boat with everyone - the one with the burden of proof.

Which is where this theory dies a death. Because if anyone had 'real' vocals, it would be him. Hence, he doesn't.

Funny that.

 

[Jesta]

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

Yep, plus he sang as a replacement for Jeremy Irons on the song "Be Prepared" on Lion King when Jeremy Irons' voice gave out after a particular line.

I'll post the link to the song, and as soon as you get to the line "You Won't Get A Sniff Without Me!" all singing onwards is Jim Cummings! It's indistinguishable! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR_xyWIX5xU

OK, you may not believe it, but this post does have a point to this topic. Jim Cummings is an amazing voice actor/impersonator. If you follow my instructions in the above post, you will hear that Jim Cummings takes over from Jeremy Irons for reasons I listed above. I challenge you to find the difference in the voice!

What I'm trying to say is, if the vocals are obviously fake, why would the Estate/SONY/Cascio hire somebody who is not a good imitator, or at least make it obvious? Disney knew what they were doing when Jeremy Irons threw out his voice. Heck, I'd say that Jim Cummings would do a better MJ impersonation that Malachi! That's one of my theories on the situation.

 

[ivy]

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

Which is where this theory dies a death. Because if anyone had 'real' vocals, it would be him. Hence, he doesn't.

Funny that.

you really do not get it or understand the "burden of proof". Yes he could have the "real" vocals (if he didn't turn all the masters and copies to the record company) and yes he could have realized "the difference". But "the difference" could be due to legitimate processing as Sony and their experts have claimed. The burden of proof will be on him "to prove this isn't the case and the vocals came from Jason Malachi".

This isn't an issue of level of difference between the given and released vocals - which is by all accounts is processed and modified. So the difference will be there. If we believe the final vocals on the released songs to be Jason Malachi ,anyone can achieve the burden of proof by matching the vocals on the album to Jason Malachi - which no one was able to do so.

 

[love is magical]

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

I'll copy this here as well




I think we have a misunderstanding here. I didn't mean "all people(doubters) hate Cascio's" , I meant "all of the hate against Cascio's comes from the vocal controversy".



I did. Thread history shows cleaning due "insults / hate against Cascio's".



see 3 strike rule in regards to insults against Jackson's



and that my whole point as well. if two scenarios are possible then why are we comparing Cascio's to the likes of Arvizo's and Chandlers?

Seems like insulting words against the Jacksons are allowed and not considered hatred because of some past questionable behaviors of SOME INDIVIDUAL members of the family. Such insult against the family is justifiable because the WHOLE FAMILY is strike out.

However, insulting words against the Cascios are not allowed and is considered hatred becasue none of the questionable tracks we heard are proven to be faudulant (although it's close to impossible to prove so). Such insult against the Cascios is not justifiable.

I'm not promoting hatred. I strongly dislike the word "hate." What I'm saying is that the double standard is obvious. The lenience given to the people who called the Jacksons every possible names are not given to the people who are frustrated with the Cascios.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Set aside the conspiracy theory (since the conspiracy theory comes as a second logical thought when you doubt the tracks). Let's go back to the topic. The real topic, not the logical outcome of it.

The real topic is, do you honestly with your own ear hear Michael's voice on those tracks? Because some of us don't, and that is the controversy that we're in, right?

So, for example the chorus: "tooooo baaaaad", is that really Michael to your ears?

Any verse that you hear, is it Michael's voice that you hear, no matter if it's a Cascio track or not.

A) Can you provide any other Michael's song from his lifelong career where he sounds exactly the same as on those three tracks. If yes I would be glad to hear them and will admit that I am mistaken in believing that Michael does not sing on the Cascio tracks.

B) If you point out 2000 watts as an example, my answer in advance is: show me a single Jason Malachi's song that sounds like 2000 watts.

A) + B) = Many doubters have shown the songs on which the Cascio songs sound exactly the same as Jason Malachi. Now I am asking non-doubters to show me any Michael Jackson's song they want on which Michael sounds exactly the same as on the Cascio tracks. Thank you

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

.....BUMP...(-er snippet)....


I thought so, this silence speaks a lot

 

[samhabib]

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

If we believe the final vocals on the released songs to be Jason Malachi ,anyone can achieve the burden of proof by matching the vocals on the album to Jason Malachi - which no one was able to do so.

I don't think I understand your point. Are you claiming that the people that claim it's Jason Malachi on those records haven't been able to prove it? I think you'll find that they've proved it beyond most doubt.

 

[love is magical]

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

.....BUMP...(-er snippet)....


I thought so, this silence speaks a lot

lol...

hi bumper

 

[Arklove]

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

opout:

 

[ivy]

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

I don't think I understand your point. Are you claiming that the people that claim it's Jason Malachi on those records haven't been able to prove it? I think you'll find that they've proved it beyond most doubt.

I meant "burden of proof" in "a court or law".

you can think the comparison videos are convincing enough (a damning evidence strongly supports your point of view) - which is completely fine- however they don't mean a thing in a court of law.

.....BUMP...(-er snippet)....


I thought so, this silence speaks a lot

eh your post has nothing to do with my "how do you know Cascio's are the guilty party and not a forced participant?" question /scenario. so let's un-bump.

for the all other points I wrote my ideas, explanation, what my ears hear etc tens of times - do a search if you need to refresh your memory