Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Pentum]

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

Just wanted to thank BUMPER for the great posts two pages back.

 

[mjjesamor]

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

I second that, thanks do much for your brilliant posts bumper. And pentum your damning videos are great too. I spat out of my coffee yesterday when listening to dah yoghurt for the first time. And the 'fakey fakin breakin the news' at the end is class! I listened to one of them with my 12 year old son yesterday and without looking at the screen he wrote down who he heard ...MJ or JM in the order he heard them and he was correct 100%.... (and he wasn't familiar with the tracks in question so it's not like he knew that way)
I'm catching up on the last few pages..Jesta i saw your question about why didn't the estate hire a 'better' impersonator. My thinking is that they didn't.....the Cascios did. And that the Cascios are amateurs and they didn't do a very good job as proved by all this doubt and confusion. They managed to sell their concoction of vocals to the Estate for a large amount of money and by the time the Estate realised there was something not quite right it was too late to backtrack and they were stubborn so forged on anyways....who knows? The mind boggles really as to why they thought the tracks were fit to go on a Michael Jackson album. They thought they would get away with it and it looks like they have for now.

 

[samhabib]

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

Show me, I recall saying certain thought's were hypocritical, I don't recall specifically calling anyone a hypocrite though.*

It doesn't have to be a class, it's just general decency. You wouldn't like it if anyone answered a question on your behalf, especially when your answer wasn't even correct, but whatever.

Lying about what? Show me these posts you're referring to.*

Again, where have I damned the Jackson's and their statements? I've given examples as to why their word is just as reliable as the Cascio's and Sony's. I've shown previous examples of the parties involved, on The Jackson's side, of their shadyness, when you and others accused the Cascio's, Teddy Riley, and other's involved as being shady themselves and having motives to lie. I've always said the Jackson's and their word shouldn't be taken as gospel, the same way I said neither should the Estate's because they have yet to show any results, or anything to back their claim either.

But if you read my post, this has nothing to do with what The Jacksons or The Estate said, but more so the fact that there hasn't been any legal action, the supposed voice behind the songs (according to you) denying his affiliation with these records, and my own personal feelings.

Right. So at what stage did your 'personal feelings' change on the matter? At what stage did you believe the Estate were right because they weren't being sued by the Jacksons when you knew full well that the Jacksons were, and are, involved in so much litigation right now? At what stage did you believe Michael was singing 'Monster' when you clearly believed he wasn't? What changed your mind? What, suddenly, turned you into a 'believer' and made you 'hear Michael' on these tracks, when you felt 'something is up' previously???

Here, for the record, is one of your earlier posts regarding Monster. It will make for interesting reading for most of us on this thread! And to think how quickly you throw out words like 'hypocrisy' at posters on here! Incredible turn of events wouldn't you say? Because I would!

It was the Estate/Sony which said it, Sony was included as the ones who hired said forensic specialists, so they're basically saying the same thing. The fact of the matter is, the results have yet to be shown, and these people Michael worked with have yet to come forward and say they listened to anything at all, or concluded who it was on the vocals. So how can fans believe such a thing actually transpired? Because the estate said so? It doesn't quite work that way. The Estate should provide evidence that it's Michael, since they "represent Michael himself", Michael wouldn't want his fans to remain in the dark about this matter. Yet that's exactly what the Estate/Sony is doing, they can openly lie, because they know nobody is going to do anything about it, The Jackson's still have pending court cases regarding wrongful death lawsuits and the like against AEG, none of which has been resolved, if a fan tried to sue, the case would be immediately thrown out, we're fans, what court will take us seriously as opposed to a major billion dollar record label? Not many, so it's easy to lie about things, knowing that most likely nothing will be done.


Fact is, there is 0% of proof that Michael is on these songs, there's also 0% of proof that he isn't. So until their is, people will continue to question them, and will continue to rightfully question an online statement. Especially when it's essentially easy to contact these people who they claim listened and concluded that it was Michael, it's easy to give out names of the Forensic analysts, and it's easy to take screenshot's of the results of the Forensic test and post them for the world to see. The fact that this hasn't been done yet, rightfully makes people wonder if any of it actually happened.*


If you feel that we should just believe what they say, despite any proof of what they're saying as being true isn't in existence, as of yet, fine. It's your opinion, but that's the equivalent of penalizing some for a crime, just because it was said they did it, and not having to provide proof. This world would be a crazy place if everything was based on "he said/she said".


I'm not saying anything about the validity of the vocals, as I've never flat out said anything was "fake", but I do believe in this case, with this one song, something is up. But that's neither here nor there, but people aren't wrong for not believing "forensic analysis" and "those who worked with Michael", because as I said, nothing at the moment exists to prove that such analysis actually happened, and that those who worked with Michael had said anything regarding the Cascio songs, let alone the album.

Completely confident? Don't make me laugh. Now tell me... what was 'up' that isn't 'up' anymore???

 

[dangerous_88]

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

great post Bumper! really great !

and btw, that clip of Breaking News without the backing vocals puts me in even a bigger dillemma now, at times I think it's Michael ... Grrrr....

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Well I'll call this quite unnecessary and even impolite as I already stated that my knowledge in that subject is "basic" and later on explained what I know and how I know so that it can be evaluated by you (and rest of the readers) accordingly. and you did evaluate it later on and said "All what you explain is correct and purely scientific". So apparently I wasn't that off in my "basic" knowledge. Plus as I didn't claim to be an expert and that my word is gospel , I think this belittling of "couldn't be taken seriously" was quite premature.

Ivy, please don’t interpret what I wrote, if I had wanted to be rude I would have used straightforward expressions, not factual remarks.

When one runs out of arguments s/he turns against the person or his reputation straying away from the real debate. Now, I have never been impolite to you, neither did I belittle what you were saying. I stayed up till 5 a.m. to read your long post and to answer it. How can you even imagine that I would take my precious time with a sole purpose to be impolite and belittle what you said? This is clearly a debate and nowhere in my post was I turning against your persona, but against your arguments and statements –which is normal in a debate. If one day you should defend a case in court, are you going to treat the prosecution as being impolite because they use counterarguments against your arguments? Are you going to be offended because you will have impression that they would treat you as a liar or because with their arguments they would belittle your arguments or statements? So please, if we are going to have a healthy debate, let’s stop being oversensitive and accept factual remarks. This latter being not necessarily negative.)

<FONT color=#4f81bd><FONT face=Verdana><FONT color=blue>

And I'm completely unknowledgeable in this areas. Therefore I wouldn't even dare to argue about you in any aspect of what you are saying. I'll just read and take your word for it. I'll ask you some questions to better understand some points.
Question: Do you account for fitting the words to the music hence the difference?

<STRONG>No, I am not. The stressed words that I am referring to are not regular, which leads me to believe that the person is trying his best to imitate someone else&#8217;s accent and in one occasion he fails. The most striking part is in the song &#8220;MONSTER&#8221;, the phrase &#8220;stalking me&#8221;:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

Because if you go with the worst case scenario of -vocals being fake and being sued - , the only way to get out of it will be to show the court that they did their best and that their examination has showed the vocals to be authentic. these are the good faith and due diligence principles. Legally speaking if someone had raised the authenticity issue and they did nothing to determine if that was really the case , they would be in more trouble (in the worst case scenario).

Indeed, that&#8217;s why I said that if doubters went to court they&#8217;d lose the case. But it is not because one fails to prove a point that the point is not true. Jesus got crucified by the court abiding by its implemented laws. Does that mean that he was or wasn't telling the truth? That's another debate.

Question : I sound quite similar (but not the same) to my mom and sometimes our relatives mix us up when we speak even my dad will go "honey is that you?" and I'll go "no dad it's me". so I guess you'll see why I have trouble with our "wonderfully trained ears" concept. In this instance why they wouldn't be able to recognize us then?

When there are interferences (noise, doors, walls, distance, etc.) between your relatives and you, your brain will think logically and assume that in the house only you or your mother could be there. Additional similarities in voice could be due to the fact that you are indeed relatives and use exactly the same jargon, accent, intonation and expressions at home contrary to other homes. Another additional fact is also the ear not paying close attention to the voice. But if your mother or you had to record a song, your relatives would most probably hear the difference, unless you are naturally sound-alikes.<o></o>

So are we saying that Bruce Swedien who recorded MJ in all his solo albums, who spent countless hours in the studio with Micheal, who did 91 mixes to Billie Jean would be inferior than a fan? and this is not about "credentials" it's about the "first hand experience". Yes you could have listened to the finished product "mix 2" of Billie Jean a million times in your life, however you don't have the first hand experience of Bruce Swedien. Regardless of how you roll the dice , Bruce wins.

We are not saying that Bruce Swedien does not have first hand experience with Michael, we are saying that Bruce Swedien doesn&#8217;t have first hand experience with a soundalike such as Jason Malachi for example.<o></o>

Well this is only about Michael's voice and not his personality, gestures etc. Plus following MJ for whole life wouldn't equal to knowing him perfectly. Actually again as Teddy, Bruce has spent considerable amount of time with Michael (during recording) they would be better in that regard as well.

They did spend time with Michael, but I highly doubt that Michael was there for hours watching Teddy and Bruce doing their job. Occasional meetings would be enough. What you seem to neglect here is the final product and the end user&#8217;s ears. As much as their job was to deliver the final touch, our end users&#8217; &#8220;job&#8221; was to listen to the final product and judge it on the individual level. So far we all have always heard the same voice, despite different styles. In the case of the Cascio, on the one hand, none of those sound engineers were there during the recordings and, on the other, we, as end users, don&#8217;t hear the voice that we are accustomed to, that&#8217;s undeniable fact often neglected.

For example Kathy Griffin in one of her stand-ups mention meeting Michael in an environment where there were few people that he knew and was close to present and he spoke with a normal (meaning deeper and not the regular high voice that we know) voice. (this is mentioned by several other people) so what if that's the real Michael and what we have seen is what he wanted us to see? In short even from that aspect people that knew Michael personally would triumph over any fan.

The normal deeper voice that Michael has you can hear it in the very beginning of &#8220;Someone put your hand out&#8221;, the spoken intro. That deeper voice does not sound what we hear on the Cascio tracks. No matter the depth of the voice, the wind and breath that are exhaled from the lungs into and through the pharynx, larynx, mouth and nose will always sound the same tone, just like a flute. Even if Michael changed the shape of his nose, he did not change his mouth, pharynx, larynx or lungs.

Well it's obvious that what I said are examples as I used the words "let's say - if" etc. However the process would be the same. Plus in scientific research/ testing there are minimum requirements in determining sample sizes, what is needed to say it's reliable and valid etc.

so regardless of whether we see it or not , a "scientific research" would have o fit into that criteria or wouldn't be scientific or hold in court.

I did not deny what you said or what the audiologists did. I said that even though they had without a doubt corroborating results, they did not bother to double check with the vocals of Jason Malachi. Hence, their study, even if they consider it sufficient, is incomplete given the amplitude of the concern and debate. I also explained that they could have a perfect match from an excellent sound-alike as long as this latter sings within the range of vocals that perfectly match the range of the vocals of the original.

again if those weren't done it wouldn't stand scientific research requirements and wouldn't hold in court. Epic / Estate mentioned these tests over and over again, Riley called out people to go to court several times. If those tests didn't exist, if those tests didn't show what they said they show and if those tests wouldn't hold in court they wouldn't be making this such definitive statements or include "questionable songs" in the album IMO.

You are omitting to say that it is they who claim taking us fans seriously. I fail to see that. All I see is half-produced and half promoted stuff to milk us making us believe that our opinion is important. Of course it is, but only in terms of money milking.<o></o>

I already acknowledged that error and fooling the test will be possible by a good imitator. However I still do not think Jason fits this bill - mainly because the "doubters" claim "the vocals sound absolutely nothing like Michael" , "it's 100 % Jason" - if it's that certain and that obvious then you should also have to agree that Jason wouldn't be able to pull out such thing. (Because the claim here is that you can hear in 100% certainty that it's Jason but the scientific test would fail 100% of the time and say it's Michael - not a realistic scenario)

When doubters say that it is not Michael, it is in a figurative way. Of course the imitator sounds like Michael. But the little details that can be undetected by the softwares can be detected by our ears. And that is the whole problem. We cannot prove that our ears don&#8217;t hear Michael since any software that we would use couldn&#8217;t detect those details. So we are trapped in a dead-end dilemma. It is as if I asked you &#8220;do you love your children or relatives?&#8221; And you answer :&#8221;Of course I do.&#8221; Now, imagine if I go further on and say: &#8220;Prove it!&#8221; Nothing can prove that you love someone, and especially not softwares.<o></o>
Likewise, nothing can prove what really ears hear. Let&#8217;s not forget that it is ears that are the perfect instrument, not the softwares. The softwares are built by people who have ears and any software that is there will be limited in terms of capacities compared to the ears&#8217; capacity. (I am not speaking about infra- or ultra-sounds, I am speaking only about the sounds that are within the range of the human ear).<o></o>

Now if the main opinion was "I hear Michael in some parts and some parts sound like Jason" then I would say that it might be a possibility that Jason is the imposter vocal because it would satisfy a) why the tests would say it's Michael (as in parts Jason was able to mimic Michael good enough to fool the test), and b) why at the same time it would raise doubts.

It's a numbers game really
- If it was that obvious that the Jason was the vocal - the test would have determined it and it wouldn't have a 100% error rate
- if Jason had the great ability to mimic MJ - less people would have been suspicious of the vocals.

So again from the "doubters" point of view the argument should have been "I hear Michael in some parts and some parts sound like Jason and therefore I believe Jason is the person doing the all vocals -sometimes good sometimes bad"

and from the "believers" point of view the argument would have been "I hear Michael in some parts and some parts are legit supporting / backing vocals".

Your arguments in this part suit the current way of analyzing the vocals to establish an opinion, making it believe unnecessary to prove the other way round. Anyway, the only reason why SONY decided to release the tracks is because they took the decision to trust the results. Nevertheless, despite the official results, the tracks have still been questioned. Let&#8217;s however not forget too that before the tests, only those three tracks were questioned. So, the ears do hear something that the software doesn't.
This is precisely the kind of situation where it makes you think of an era when the whole world believed that scientifically speaking the Earth was not revolving around the sun and when Galileo Galilei unable to prove it -with the tools the society had at disposal at that moment- against all said: &#8220;AND YET IT MOVES!&#8221;
In the Cascio tracks situation, despite the current analysis carried out by the audiologists and the results, one would tend to say: "AND YET, IT IS NOT MICHAEL'S VOICE!"

 

[donalb]

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

Dear Annie - I fully agree with your statements regarding Monster as posted by Sam above. Something is definitely "up" with this song and the Estate/Sony have provided absolutely no proof that the vocals are Michael. Until they do so, I can not support this song. Ditto for the other C-tracks.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

p.s. @Ivy

And I'm completely unknowledgeable in this areas. Therefore I wouldn't even dare to argue about you in any aspect of what you are saying. I'll just read and take your word for it. I'll ask you some questions to better understand some points.
Question: Do you account for fitting the words to the music hence the difference?

No, I am not. The stressed words that I am referring to are not regular, which leads me to believe that the person is trying his best to imitate someone else&#8217;s accent and in one occasion he fails. The most striking part is in the song &#8220;MONSTER&#8221;, the phrase &#8220;stalking me&#8221;:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o></STRONG>
At 4:12 and 4:19 the accent is the same and there is nothing shocking there. <o></o>
At 3:57 the same voice fails to deliver the same accent hurting ears&#8217; sensitivity. <o></o>
If the voice can adopt the same accent in 4:12 and 4:19, it could have also at 3:57, but it didn&#8217;t. <o></o>
Now, in reference to Michael&#8217;s accent, never had Michael had the accent that we hear at 3:57.<o></o>

 

[ivy]

No, I am not. The stressed words that I am referring to are not regular, which leads me to believe that the person is trying his best to imitate someone else&#8217;s accent and in one occasion he fails. The most striking part is in the song &#8220;MONSTER&#8221;, the phrase &#8220;stalking me&#8221;:
At 4:12 and 4:19 the accent is the same and there is nothing shocking there.

At 3:57 the same voice fails to deliver the same accent hurting ears&#8217; sensitivity.

If the voice can adopt the same accent in 4:12 and 4:19, it could have also at 3:57, but it didn&#8217;t.

Now, in reference to Michael&#8217;s accent, never had Michael had the accent that we hear at 3:57.

Question : Are we always perfect in this regards? In other words let's say there's a difference, can it happen? Is it a possibility for one reason or another to have difference or is it impossible?

I hope I'm clear it's again the question of "yes there's a difference but is that difference is acceptable or statistically significant? "

The tracks were questioned the day after they were submitted and that&#8217;s why the tests were carried out. The article doesn&#8217;t say by whom it was questioned. But I think that fairly enough we can assume that the buyer doubted, i.e. SONY.

The article is the estate statement (nothing more) and you are misreading it.

The day after the submission and selection of the album tracks, for the very first time, the authenticity of Michael&#8217;s vocals on the Cascio tracks was questioned.

"selection of the album tracks" refer to the finished product - as we all know several songs didn't make the cut which included Corey Roney song, Blue Gansta etc - so this "submission and selection" isn't the day Cascio's gave the vocals to Sony, it's the day the producers gave them the finished songs and Sony said "We'll have these 3 songs on the album"

Again "for the very first time" expresses this "late doubt".

And I think they refer to Jacksons - most probably Taryll - as the person who questioned the vocals and just didn't say his name. Taryll already said that he is the one that started it.

edited to add : Lawyer hat on : This statement comes from a lawyer and I think most people do not read it the way that I'm reading it. He actually introduces reasonable doubt about these claims by that sentence.
So the songs were around people listened to them and the doubt is raised "for the very first time" after some time passed and these songs made the cut for the album.
Scenario 1: Person(s) who raised these concerns initially though the vocals to be Michael but as they listened the songs over and over they became suspicious. Legal perspective : They maintained two conflicting opinions over time , therefore the strength of their convictions can be argued. The persons will argue that their final opinion to be correct and they were initially wrong. Opposite can be argued by the other side for reasonable doubt.
Scenario 2: Person(s) were always suspicious of the vocals but waited some time to raise their concerns. Brings the option to question the motive of the people with the claims - why now? why wait?

We are not saying that Bruce Swedien does not have first hand experience with Michael, we are saying that Bruce Swedien doesn&#8217;t have first hand experience with a soundalike such as Jason Malachi for example.

Neither any of us have any first hand experience with Jason either.

I did not deny what you said or what the audiologists did. I said that even though they had without a doubt corroborating results, they did not bother to double check with the vocals of Jason Malachi. Hence, their study, even if they consider it sufficient, is incomplete given the amplitude of the concern and debate. I also explained that they could have a perfect match from an excellent sound-alike as long as this latter sings within the range of vocals that perfectly match the range of the vocals of the original.

but who says they didn't do it with Jason Malachi or other sound alike to make sure they can differentiate between them and Michael? Remember I said they probably used "non-mj vocals" , it makes sense to use a close vocal to say that their tests are right.

For example my research area is in business and we did a test trying to determine "customer happiness". In reliability - validity you don't test it against "customer sadness" - which is the exact opposite and even a half-baked survey will be able to differentiate between two. You choose a concept that's similar and could be mistaken - another positive response emotion.

So technically speaking it would make sense to test their program with a close vocal.

 

[samhabib]

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

and btw, that clip of Breaking News without the backing vocals puts me in even a bigger dillemma now, at times I think it's Michael ... Grrrr....

You think the vocals are Michael based on that clip?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Question : Are we always perfect in this regards? In other words let's say there's a difference, can it happen? Is it a possibility for one reason or another to have difference or is it impossible?

I hope I'm clear it's again the question of "yes there's a difference but is that difference is acceptable or statistically significant?

Are we perfect when it come to the pronunciation? Well, we usually pronounce the same words with the same accent despite the difference of the pitch, unless we deliberately change our accent. However, when one records a song, it would be rather not only unusual, but also completely unnatural to change deliberately and without any reasons the accent within even not one minute difference between the first and thje second pronunciation.

I wouldn't use the term "perfect" to describe this, but rather "reasonably equal" pronunciation, which is not the case at 3:57. It is actually so striking to my ears -and allow me to put my language teacher's hat on- that I would tend to say to the singer at 3:57: "Stop please, could you repeat that again!" Which he actually successfully does at the two following occasions at 4:12 and 4:19.

The article is the estate statement (nothing more) and you are misreading it.

The day after the submission and selection of the album tracks, for the very first time, the authenticity of Michael’s vocals on the Cascio tracks was questioned.

"selection of the album tracks" refer to the finished product - as we all know several songs didn't make the cut which included Corey Roney song, Blue Gansta etc - so this "submission and selection" isn't the day Cascio's gave the vocals to Sony, it's the day the producers gave them the finished songs and Sony said "We'll have these 3 songs on the album"

Again "for the very first time" expresses this "late doubt".

And I think they refer to Jacksons - most probably Taryll - as the person who questioned the vocals and just didn't say his name. Taryll already said that he is the one that started it.

Fair enough. Nonetheless, firstly, the article does not mention who questioned the article, so even though we know that it was Taryll since he said it himself, we absolutely have no information if other people questioned the tracks.

Secondly, only the Cascio tracks have been questioned, and that is an indication!

Thirdly and finally, it would be foolish for any respected musician to hear a cappellas and not question them at all and later all of sudden when the vocals are put on the actual songs with instruments and backing vocals to question them. It just does not make sense. What makes sense is that the vocals were doubted from the very beginning.

I did not use the example of what Taryll mention, but since you brought him into the discussion, why are you then neglecting what he said about Teddy Riley's reaction when he heard the vocals vocals for the first time? We cannot but conclude that either Taryll is a liar or Teddy. I just don't see any motive for Taryll to lie, not only because he has no interest in jeopardizing his career as a musician, but also because my own ears hear that something is wrong with those tracks, as I just mentioned the example of "stalking me" phrase.

Although I respect Teddy's work and love what he did, I can't believe him until I get some real solid proof. And the thing is, even if I get that proof, I still wouldn't be able to hear Michael's tone of voice on those tracks. That is what is bothering me. How can you prove something that goes against your own nature?

Neither any of us have any first hand experience with Jason either.



but who says they didn't do it with Jason Malachi or other sound alike to make sure they can differentiate between them and Michael? Remember I said they probably used "non-mj vocals" , it makes sense to use a close vocal to say that their tests are right.

Probably is not enough. And the truth of the matter anyway is that the details of the results have not been published. The results, as a matter of fact, can also be questioned and scuientifically analyzed, and we fans who are "taken seriously" are still waiting for the slightest proof that they fail to deliver apart from statements, conclusions and beliefs.

For example my research area is in business and we did a test trying to determine "customer happiness". In reliability - validity you don't test it against "customer sadness" - which is the exact opposite and even a half-baked survey will be able to differentiate between two. You choose a concept that's similar and could be mistaken - another positive response emotion.

So technically speaking it would make sense to test their program with a close vocal.

I don't see any similarity bewteen testing customer happines or satisfaction and the case we are discussing here regarding the authenticity and plausible imitation of vocals.

When you audit your customer's satisfaction, you either know if the customer is satisfied or not.

When you compare Cascio tracks to Michael's vocals, the audiologists will draw conclusions from striking similarities and will base their conclusion on that without bothering to compare with other sound-alikes. It would be a waste of time for them. The article never mentions the comparison with other sound-alikes and the only approach was to contact Malachi and ask if he sang the songs. This latter is all but scientific approach. How about, rather than contacting Jason Malachi, put side by side songs such as "let me let go" and "monster" and analyse the vocal waveformats?

 

[Kapital77]

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

Just wanted to thank BUMPER for the great posts two pages back.

Me too.

 

[samhabib]

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

The isolated lead vocal as just acapella. This is Michael Jackson? MICHAEL JACKSON???

[youtube]qWBNH5-HY-Q[/youtube]

 

[mjjesamor]

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

If that's Michael Jackson i'm Lady Gaga

 

[samhabib]

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

If that's Michael Jackson i'm Lady Gaga

If that's Michael Jackson, I'm Janet. Ms. Jackon, if you're nasty.

 

[Tom]

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

You can hear clearly in the acappela where the 'hoo' and 'dah' sounds have been sampled. If it's Michael, why couldn't they have just got him to record them? They were obviously added in to improve authenticity.

 

[samhabib]

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

You can hear clearly in the acappela where the 'hoo' and 'dah' sounds have been sampled. If it's Michael, why couldn't they have just got him to record them? They were obviously added in to improve authenticity.

The thing is the 'hooos' and the 'dah' sounds came completely naturally to him. It was just the way he sang. The fact that those are missing and have been added from other songs just screams 'fake' to me. Or just ADDS to the obvious fakeness, to me, I should say.

 

[Graf]

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

You guys all know that "Keep The Magic" campaign Birchey is doing for the Bad DVD? I wish that we had done a similar campaign for the new album. Is there even 1 fully completed song Michael was able to hear himself?

It's just mash up of edited, remixed, looped, "recently brought to completion" tracks..Why not just gather all completed tracks and release them as they are, with Michael Jackson's musical vision and not Akon's/Lenny Kravitz/Teddy Rileys?

 

[Tom]

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

And Michael, being the absolute perfectionist he was, would allow a demo such as this to go untouched? No. Listen to songs like "Beautiful Girl" and "The Way You Love Me". They were demos, yet Michael recorded and tampered with the vocals as if they were finished songs. The ad-libs and extra lyrics added in above the vocals at some points sound so poor, it's hard to believe Michael would include things like that.

 

[Tony R]

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

You guys all know that "Keep The Magic" campaign Birchey is doing for the Bad DVD? I wish that we had done a similar campaign for the new album. Is there even 1 fully completed song Michael was able to hear himself?

It's just mash up of edited, remixed, looped, "recently brought to completion" tracks..Why not just gather all completed tracks and release them as they are, with Michael Jackson's musical vision and not Akon's/Lenny Kravitz/Teddy Rileys?

And Michael, being the absolute perfectionist he was, would allow a demo such as this to go untouched? No. Listen to songs like "Beautiful Girl" and "The Way You Love Me". They were demos, yet Michael recorded and tampered with the vocals as if they were finished songs. The ad-libs and extra lyrics added in above the vocals at some points sound so poor, it's hard to believe Michael would include things like that.

I have no problem with album being finished off by others, the sad realism is that's all we can get now. But there's a vast difference between finishing off a song & inventing it virtually from scratch.

I'm glad the album happened, for me Much Too Soon, Another Day & the sublime Behind The Mask has been the best music I've heard in the last 12 months. Such as shame this enjoyment has been marred by the ridiculous other 3 tracks. Imagine if the wonderful STTR, DWKWYCA & Blue Gangsta had been included instead. It would have been his best album since HIStory (in my opinion), we'd all have been so happy and unified.

More annoying than the sheet chutzpah of including these tracks is the lack of logic behind it.

 

[kreen]

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

You can hear clearly in the acappela where the 'hoo' and 'dah' sounds have been sampled. If it's Michael, why couldn't they have just got him to record them? They were obviously added in to improve authenticity.

It's never been denied that samples from earlier songs were added to the Cascio recordings to make them more releasable.

Why couldn't they just get MJ to record those additions? Well, because he was dead. If anything, the fact that such additions were even needed would seem to indicate the tracks are REAL, because if they'd just hired an impersonator, they could have gotten HIM to record everything needed.

 

[Arklove]

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

No matter how much debate, no matter how many comparison videos are shown, no matter how much conversation we have about this....I KNOW deep down in my heart that it is NOT Michael Jackson singing in those tracks. Don't even try to reiterate to me that this is 'my opinion'. I mean no disrespect. I don't care if I sound stubborn. I'm not buying any of the shit excuses that we've been given. I will never, ever, ever forget the feeling I had upon hearing each and every single one of those Cascio tracks. I trust my instincts, and I trust my ears.

Life is fucked up sometimes....Sometimes people lie, sometimes people cheat, sometimes people betray. This is one of those times.

 

[kreen]

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

The isolated lead vocal as just acapella. This is Michael Jackson? MICHAEL JACKSON???

[youtube]qWBNH5-HY-Q[/youtube]

Of course it sounds like Michael Jackson : who do you think it sounds like, Bob Dylan? But it sounds like late-era MJ, not Thriller-era MJ, though. It sounds like Invincible-era MJ. Maybe that's what's throwing you off : if you're expecting "Beat it" or "Man in the Mirror", you're in the wrong decade.

 

[mjjesamor]

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

Ok than,obviously it sounds a bit 'like' michael jackson because that is the intention of the person singing and the people that engineered this. But sounding like and being are two different things.
Arklove i agree with you 100%. I felt physically sick when i heard 'breaking news'
It's just not michael. No way.

 

[donalb]

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

No matter how much debate, no matter how many comparison videos are shown, no matter how much conversation we have about this....I KNOW deep down in my heart that it is NOT Michael Jackson singing in those tracks. Don't even try to reiterate to me that this is 'my opinion'. I mean no disrespect. I don't care if I sound stubborn. I'm not buying any of the shit excuses that we've been given. I will never, ever, ever forget the feeling I had upon hearing each and every single one of those Cascio tracks. I trust my instincts, and I trust my ears.

Life is fucked up sometimes....Sometimes people lie, sometimes people cheat, sometimes people betray. This is one of those times.

I really appreciate your passion regarding this subject. It definitely demonstrates how strongly you feel about Michael.

 

[samhabib]

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

Of course it sounds like Michael Jackson : who do you think it sounds like, Bob Dylan? But it sounds like late-era MJ, not Thriller-era MJ, though. It sounds like Invincible-era MJ. Maybe that's what's throwing you off : if you're expecting "Beat it" or "Man in the Mirror", you're in the wrong decade.

Find me one song that Michael Jackson - 'late-era' - sounds anything like this bullshit. Just one song. Go on... dig something out... I'll be waiting...

 

[samhabib]

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

No matter how much debate, no matter how many comparison videos are shown, no matter how much conversation we have about this....I KNOW deep down in my heart that it is NOT Michael Jackson singing in those tracks. Don't even try to reiterate to me that this is 'my opinion'. I mean no disrespect. I don't care if I sound stubborn. I'm not buying any of the shit excuses that we've been given. I will never, ever, ever forget the feeling I had upon hearing each and every single one of those Cascio tracks. I trust my instincts, and I trust my ears.

Life is fucked up sometimes....Sometimes people lie, sometimes people cheat, sometimes people betray. This is one of those times.

Agree with every word. As usual

The last paragraph is especially true of Michael Jackson's life. Sometimes people lie? Nearly always people lie in the world of Michael Jackson. For money.

But let's pretend that that's not the case.

I'm still waiting to hear what made Annie change her mind about these songs to now be completely confident in them. I literally can't wait.

 

[Pentum]

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

Why does so many of the MJ fans think Michael's voice changed so much from the 80s to the late years? His style and way of singing might have changed, but his voice was still pretty much the same, and would never sound anything like the Cascio songs.

Listen to this, this is Michael singing The Love You Save with the typical demo recording style of his: Falsetto to save his voice, almost mumbling, not singing loud, etc.

http://soundcloud.com/pentum/the-love-you-save-92


Now listen to this, 17 years later, he sounds almost identical when doing the same style:

http://soundcloud.com/pentum/the-love-you-save-2009


(Could anyone PLEASE tell me how to embed soundcloud links here at MJJC?)

 

[Arklove]

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

Arklove i agree with you 100%. I felt physically sick when i heard 'breaking news'
It's just not michael. No way.

Same with me....I was physically sick, I cried, I didn't sleep all night...I was a zombie at work the next day, and basically a mess the rest of the week. Those first instincts I had....The first thoughts I had were - '..They did this to him...they actually did this...' I was crushed and cried for Michael. I didn't care about myself. It's about MICHAEL.

I really appreciate your passion regarding this subject. It definitely demonstrates how strongly you feel about Michael.

Thank you for understanding. If you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. I won't let this go.

Agree with every word. As usual

The last paragraph is especially true of Michael Jackson's life. Sometimes people lie? Nearly always people lie in the world of Michael Jackson. For money.

But let's pretend that that's not the case.

I'm still waiting to hear what made Annie change her mind about these songs to now be completely confident in them. I literally can't wait.

You know, I don't even care if someone changes their minds about the songs. That's their prerogative. However, these people need to REMEMBER what they felt like hearing those songs for the first time. Please remember what it felt like if you don't understand why us non-believers vehemently persist at this issue. There should be no doubt when listening to your hero's voice.

 

[jaXXXon]

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

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! This is Breaking News with just the isolated lead vocal... people are claiming this is Michael Jackson? Forensic Audiologists??? This is a killer! Without all the bullshit processing and backing vocals to disguise what was so obvious to so many of us!

[youtube]6XkLyFpz4QE&[/youtube]

I can believe that some new fans can maybe be fooled but the ok'd time fans thinking this is MJ.....breaks my heart .... This sounds nothing like MJ

 

[kreen]

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

Find me one song that Michael Jackson - 'late-era' - sounds anything like this bullshit. Just one song. Go on... dig something out... I'll be waiting...

I don't have the know-how to create audio comparisons like some of you guys do, but I can think of MJ songs, certainly, that sound like BN or Monster : 2000 Watts, Shout, Privacy, the Invincible uptempo songs like Threatened and Heartbreaker, etc. And I can think of several more, even from earlier albums, that sound like KYHU.

And even if the Cascio tracks DID sound different from all other MJ recordings, it would almost make sense, because they ARE different, in the sense that they were recorded in 2007, in an unprofessional setting, and that they were at best guide vocals, never meant to be released to the public.