Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Tom]

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.

Not a valid argument at all. I'm pretty sure I can tell what era a song is from by listening to his voice, because there are slight changes, but these three are completely different. I can tell songs like Shout and Escape are from Invincible. I can even tell that 2000 Watts is Michael because apparently this is the same situation? No, I know his voice, and it has barely changed since Off The Wall.

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.

No no no. Like I say, and I wrote that before you posted this, those songs are easily Michael. Nobody kicks up a fuss about those.

And you're saying that he recorded Invincible, his voice changed to the Monster/KYHU/BN style and then returned to classic Michael in This Is It? Give me a break. A more valid question to you would be can you find songs in TII that sound like the Cascio tracks? Surely if it was a new era Michael his voice would change and alter the classics? No.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

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.

There is a huge rift between the Cascio tracks and the songs you mentioned. You seem not to hear it.

It is just as if I said that "let me let go" by Jason Malachi sounds the same as 2000 watts, Shout, Privacy, etc.

Are you saying that you do not hear striking similarities between the voice on "let me let go" by Jason Malachi and "monster"?

 

[kreen]

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

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.


.

Could it be that you were just so shocked, so startled by your first impression of BN that it just changed your perception of all of the other Cascio tracks from then on? Breaking News was a shock, that's for sure : MJ's voice was overprocessed, the mix was bad, he was singing in the third persion -- which was weird --, and the song was no classic. So yeah, if you waited until midnight and were hoping to hear MJ's pure, clear voice from 1985, it was bound to be like a slap in the face. So as a defence mechanism to our negative reaction, we seized upon the first theory that came to our mind -- because of the Jacksons' accusation just a day before -- and said : the tracks are fake!

Basically, we didn't want Breaking News to be Michael, so we made it Jason Malachi.

If KYHU had been the first song streamed on the official Web site, the whole controversy might have never happened.

 

[samhabib]

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

I don't have the know-how to create audio comparisons like some of you guys do

Convenient. Go and find an acapella that sounds like that Breaking News one. That's all. Then tell me what you do or don't know.

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.

Translation: "It's clearly Michael Jackson because it sounds different to Michael Jackson."

One of the more ridiculous theories I hear. Even the PVC pipe is better than this one.

"It's Michael... because it doesn't sound like Michael". That you can actually type that with a straight face is a worry.

 

[jaXXXon]

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

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.

MJ would never sing those additions een if he could come back from the dead to get it done, he didn't even sing the MAIN part...plus, sony knew these tracks lacked... Oh I don't know... MICHAEL.. so they added some real MJ to their falsified tracks. Michael never sang
On the tracks. That voice is wack compared to Michael jacksons voice.

 

[Tom]

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

There is a huge rift between the Cascio tracks and the songs you mentioned. You seem not to hear it.

It is just as if I said that "let me let go" by Jason Malachi sounds the same as 2000 watts, Shout, Privacy, etc.

Are you saying that you do not hear striking similarities between the voice on "let me let go" by Jason Malachi and "monster"?

This. IMO, the opening lyrics of both LMLG and Monster are almost identical in timing and structure. Monster always reminds me of LMLG.

 

[kreen]

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

A more valid question to you would be can you find songs in TII that sound like the Cascio tracks? Surely if it was a new era Michael his voice would change and alter the classics? No.

Well, most of TII was lip-synched or mimed, but I'll admit that the few places where he did sing live, he sounded like old-time MJ. But then again, he was singing old songs, and his thing seemed to be that the classics always had to be sung in the exact same way they were on the records. He did lower the original recordings during the MSG concerts in 2001, so it seems even he realized that his real voice had lowered to the point where it would be ridiculous for him to lip-synch to the original, higher recordings.

But I'll throw this out there : what do you make of MJ's voice during the TII press conference? Don't you agree that, especially at the beginning, he sounded VERY different, almost unrecognizable? It was so low and un-MJ. And yet it was MJ.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

This. IMO, the opening lyrics of both LMLG and Monster are almost identical in timing and structure. Monster always reminds me of LMLG.

Exactly! And even the "toooo baaad" part on "Monster" makes you think of "Whyyyyy you wanna lead me ooooon..." on "Let me let go" by Jason Malachi. Not only the voice but the style of the song itself is almost identical.

 

[kreen]

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

This. IMO, the opening lyrics of both LMLG and Monster are almost identical in timing and structure. Monster always reminds me of LMLG.

So now Jason Malachi WROTE Monster? Wow.

 

[Tom]

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

Well, most of TII was lip-synched or mimed, but I'll admit that the few places where he did sing live, he sounded like old-time MJ. But then again, he was singing old songs, and his thing seemed to be that the classics always had to be sung in the exact same way they were on the records. He did lower the original recordings during the MSG concerts in 2001, so it seems even he realized that his real voice had lowered to the point where it would be ridiculous for him to lip-synch to the original, higher recordings.

But I'll throw this out there : what do you make of MJ's voice during the TII press conference? Don't you agree that, especially at the beginning, he sounded VERY different, almost unrecognizable? It was so low and un-MJ. And yet it was MJ.

His voice was Michael. No doubt, no question. You seem very self-contradictive. So no, I don't agree.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Well, most of TII was lip-synched or mimed, but I'll admit that the few places where he did sing live, he sounded like old-time MJ. But then again, he was singing old songs, and his thing seemed to be that the classics always had to be sung in the exact same way they were on the records. He did lower the original recordings during the MSG concerts in 2001, so it seems even he realized that his real voice had lowered to the point where it would be ridiculous for him to lip-synch to the original, higher recordings.

But I'll throw this out there : what do you make of MJ's voice during the TII press conference? Don't you agree that, especially at the beginning, he sounded VERY different, almost unrecognizable? It was so low and un-MJ. And yet it was MJ.

You mean that deep?:

[youtube]_BnliI7kXD8[/youtube]



A young Michael, perfectly able to sing in a lower key, and sounds nothing like on the Cascios.

 

[Arklove]

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

Could it be that you were just so shocked, so startled by your first impression of BN that it just changed your perception of all of the other Cascio tracks from then on? Breaking News was a shock, that's for sure : MJ's voice was overprocessed, the mix was bad, he was singing in the third persion -- which was weird --, and the song was no classic. So yeah, if you waited until midnight and were hoping to hear MJ's pure, clear voice from 1985, it was bound to be like a slap in the face. So as a defence mechanism to our negative reaction, we seized upon the first theory that came to our mind -- because of the Jacksons' accusation just a day before -- and said : the tracks are fake!

Basically, we didn't want Breaking News to be Michael, so we made it Jason Malachi.

If KYHU had been the first song streamed on the official Web site, the whole controversy might have never happened.

Absolutely not. As I said...I had the same reaction to ALL the Cascio tracks. I had an open mind, though. I've listened to each one numerous times, trying to hear what those that believe it's him hear.

I completely disagree with what you say about KYHU. If it was the first song to be streamed, I'd get the same reaction. The person that sent me KYHU for the first time when it was leaked told me it was 100% MJ. I listened to it. The first note indicated to me that it wasn't him. Same with Monster. I listened to it for the first time, the little snippet, and KNEW it wasn't him. I wasn't even thinking Jason Malachi or anyone else. I just knew it wasn't Michael Jackson. Period.

Why would I be expecting to hear Michael from 1985? No. What I did expect, though, was to hear Michael Jackson's voice. Were my expectations too high? Fcuk no, when it's supposedly a Michael Jackson record?

The Jackson's stance on the 'fakeness' had no bearing on what I was hearing. I brushed their comments off. I don't need them or anyone else telling me this is fake. I don't need Teddy Riley or the Cascio's to tell me that it isn't fake. I trust my own ears and I trust my instinct. Seeing as there is no 'proof' either side, I'll trust myself.

 

[jaXXXon]

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

There is a huge rift between the Cascio tracks and the songs you mentioned. You seem not to hear it.

It is just as if I said that "let me let go" by Jason Malachi sounds the same as 2000 watts, Shout, Privacy, etc.

Are you saying that you do not hear striking similarities between the voice on "let me let go" by Jason Malachi and "monster"?

Bumper.... I wouldn't bother... Lost cause. The songs listed sound NOTHING like BN or Monster. There's no reasoning with that kind of thinking. It's on a totally different page, just gotta let that one be.

I just wonder what the motivation of the believers is in regards to being in this thread. If I had a album I thought was pure Michael I wouldn't bother with this thread. Makes you wonder, maybe they gave underlying doubts too?

 

[Tony R]

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

Well, most of TII was lip-synched or mimed, but I'll admit that the few places where he did sing live, he sounded like old-time MJ. But then again, he was singing old songs, and his thing seemed to be that the classics always had to be sung in the exact same way they were on the records. He did lower the original recordings during the MSG concerts in 2001, so it seems even he realized that his real voice had lowered to the point where it would be ridiculous for him to lip-synch to the original, higher recordings.

But I'll throw this out there : what do you make of MJ's voice during the TII press conference? Don't you agree that, especially at the beginning, he sounded VERY different, almost unrecognizable? It was so low and un-MJ. And yet it was MJ.

I thought most of TII was the most live he'd been since Bad.

WBSS, Billie Jean, Human Nature, IJCSLY, TWYMMF, even Smooth Criminal all live and all pretty much as he sounds on record.

Yes, his voice at the press conference he had his deep voice on, but his speaking voice did alter but it was always recognisible as MJ, as his singing voice was always recognisible as MJ whether it was Shout, 2000 Watts, TDCAU etc.

However, the first second I heard BN, I knew it wasn't Michael.

 

[Tom]

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

So now Jason Malachi WROTE Monster? Wow.

When did I say that? There's a difference between writing and deliverance. I'm not saying he put pen to paper on it, I'm saying he uses the same style of lyrical flow and timbre when recording...

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

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

His voice was very Michael to you, to me, maybe to everyone else in this thread. But don't act as if many, many, of this boards own members weren't saying "That doesn't sound like Michael, Michael doesn't talk that way, it's not him", for a long period of time.

I thought most of TII was the most live he'd been since Bad.

WBSS, Billie Jean, Human Nature, IJCSLY, TWYMMF, even Smooth Criminal all live and all pretty much as he sounds on record.

Everything bolded was playback. Aside from the intro to TWYMMF and small bits of Smooth Criminal, sorry pal.

 

[Tom]

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

You mean that deep?:

[youtube]_BnliI7kXD8[/youtube]



A young Michael, perfectly able to sing in a lower key, and sounds nothing like on the Cascios.

And of course, this high (3:47).

[youtube]3vR199-yf8k[/youtube]

Michael had a 4 octave range, so pitch is completely out of the question.

 

[Arklove]

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

I just wonder what the motivation of the believers is in regards to being in this thread. If I had a album I thought was pure Michael I wouldn't bother with this thread. Makes you wonder, maybe they gave underlying doubts too?

This is what I wonder, too. You either believe it's him, or you don't. I cannot fathom to listen to those songs with doubt. Not my way of enjoying music.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

This is what I wonder, too. You either believe it's him, or you don't. I cannot fathom to listen to those songs with doubt. Not my way of enjoying music.

Could it be... voyeurism?

 

[Arklove]

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

Could it be... voyeurism?

Oh, Bumper, you're too funny....Yes, perhaps, this could be the reason

 

[Jesta]

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

OK, time for another one of my cartoon-themed hearing tests! I am a fan of Japanese animation, and there is this one show called "Yatterman". It originally aired in 1977 and had a remake in 2008. The remake had a few cast changes for obvious reasons. Now listen to these songs and tell me if you believe that the same people are singing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIK64lxstys

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71CDoDvh3i0

This probably won't change anything (like anything would!) but it's worth a shot.

EDIT: Wrong link on the first one, sorry!

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

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

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!



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

You didn't include that that post was from before the album released or within the week of release, therefore consumer fraud wasn't part of the equation then. That's also around the same time that I stated that it was possible that Michael recorded some of the songs, and some of the others may have been filler, done by someone else(In regards to, "something is up". This was also before I was informed of the rigorous testing that would go into such forensic analysis that Sony claims they had done. Again, nowhere in that post did I state something was "fake". I took a stand stating that Sony's words shouldn't be taken as gospel, which as you can see by previous posts, I still believe.

Keep in mind this was before people started contradicting themselves, and calling the Cascio's liars, backstabbers, and everything under the sun, without any proof to back their claim. Also, this was before comparisons started being made and similarities arose of certain tracks and other performances where Michael wasn't 100%, such as the WMA's in 06. Also, keep in mind this was before Jason Malachi's manager issued a statement clarifying that the guy had nothing to do with the songs.


Not only that, but that statement was before people started altering the pitches of songs like All I Need and Breaking News to benefit the "It's Malachi.." argument. Before they started to berate a family, for one reason, but at the same time praise the other, for the same exact reason. And as far as litigation goes, excuse my ignorance, but vocal authenticity is a lot easier to prove in a court than a wrongful death would be.

Bottomline is, that post signifies that Sony's words shouldn't be taken as gospel, for their own lack of proof, other than words. At the same time, neither should the words of you, and other's because aside from the many comparisions, their isn't any proof to support your claim.

 

[Tom]

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

You didn't include that that post was from before the album released or within the week of release, therefore consumer fraud wasn't part of the equation then. That's also around the same time that I stated that it was possible that Michael recorded some of the songs, and some of the others may have been filler, done by someone else(In regards to, "something is up". This was also before I was informed of the rigorous testing that would go into such forensic analysis that Sony claims they had done. Again, nowhere in that post did I state something was "fake". I took a stand stating that Sony's words shouldn't be taken as gospel, which as you can see by previous posts, I still believe.

Keep in mind this was before people started contradicting themselves, and calling the Cascio's liars, backstabbers, and everything under the sun, without any proof to back their claim. Also, this was before comparisons started being made and similarities arose of certain tracks and other performances where Michael wasn't 100%, such as the WMA's in 06. Also, keep in mind this was before Jason Malachi's manager issued a statement clarifying that the guy had nothing to do with the songs.


Not only that, but that statement was before people started altering the pitches of songs like All I Need and Breaking News to benefit the "It's Malachi.." argument. Before they started to berate a family, for one reason, but at the same time praise the other, for the same exact reason. And as far as litigation goes, excuse my ignorance, but vocal authenticity is a lot easier to prove in a court than a wrongful death would be.

Bottomline is, that post signifies that Sony's words shouldn't be taken as gospel, for their own lack of proof, other than words. At the same time, neither should the words of you, and other's because aside from the many comparisions, their isn't any proof to support your claim.

No, there isn't proof. That's exactly the reason for all the controversy. If there was outright proof, we wouldn't need to question anything. But there isn't any proof, and so people should be allowed to speculate freely either way.

 

[Arklove]

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

Annie, I'm just curious...Instinctively, deep down in your heart, throw all logic out the window, do you believe it's Michael?

 

[samhabib]

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

You didn't include that that post was from before the album released or within the week of release, therefore consumer fraud wasn't part of the equation then. That's also around the same time that I stated that it was possible that Michael recorded some of the songs, and some of the others may have been filler, done by someone else(In regards to, "something is up". This was also before I was informed of the rigorous testing that would go into such forensic analysis that Sony claims they had done. Again, nowhere in that post did I state something was "fake". I took a stand stating that Sony's words shouldn't be taken as gospel, which as you can see by previous posts, I still believe.

Keep in mind this was before people started contradicting themselves, and calling the Cascio's liars, backstabbers, and everything under the sun, without any proof to back their claim. Also, this was before comparisons started being made and similarities arose of certain tracks and other performances where Michael wasn't 100%, such as the WMA's in 06. Also, keep in mind this was before Jason Malachi's manager issued a statement clarifying that the guy had nothing to do with the songs.


Not only that, but that statement was before people started altering the pitches of songs like All I Need and Breaking News to benefit the "It's Malachi.." argument. Before they started to berate a family, for one reason, but at the same time praise the other, for the same exact reason. And as far as litigation goes, excuse my ignorance, but vocal authenticity is a lot easier to prove in a court than a wrongful death would be.

Bottomline is, that post signifies that Sony's words shouldn't be taken as gospel, for their own lack of proof, other than words. At the same time, neither should the words of you, and other's because aside from the many comparisions, their isn't any proof to support your claim.

Noise.

The bottom line is that it doesn't sound like Michael Jackson. You know it. I know it. And, it's plain for every member of this board to see, that your views are a complete contradiction of your beliefs. 'Comparisons'? 'Altering pitches'? 'Wrongful death suit'? All a bunch of tosh. You don't hear Michael Jackson on those tracks. Regardless of what 'information' has come to light, since.

 

[kopwatcher]

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

I hope everyone can agree this project has been a monumental stuff up. At least let's agree on that.

 

[Tom]

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

Please do not post contents of a closed thread in here.

 

[samhabib]

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

Nope you're wrong too, everyone's opinions are just that, opinions, Michael is dead so controversy will continue, but if he was alive and this album was released, we wouldn't be having this debate

If he was alive he still wouldn't have known about these bullshit songs. Good thing for the Cascios that he died, then.

 

[larry141094]

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

I hope everyone can agree this project has been a monumental stuff up. At least let's agree on that.

Well yes i agree on that, the amount of people who thought it was another compilation was just astounding, like talk about failed advertising :mello:

 

[MJRemixed]

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

Originally Posted by kreen
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.

MJ would never sing those additions een if he could come back from the dead to get it done, he didn't even sing the MAIN part...plus, sony knew these tracks lacked... Oh I don't know... MICHAEL.. so they added some real MJ to their falsified tracks. Michael never sang
On the tracks. That voice is wack compared to Michael jacksons voice.

The parts of real MJ that they added to the tracks are parts that JASON could not achieve himself. Thats why they added Mjs samples from the past.
The Aaaow on Monster - Jason cannot replicate that. Only Michael can.
Same goes for the Hooo in BN, etc
And another reason for adding these is for make the tracks seem more authentic - throw in some genuine MJ vocals and mix with an impersonator and no body will notice the difference because it was their hope it would just "flow" seamlessly. But it didn't. It sticks and stuck out like a SORE THUMB.