Michael - The Great Album Debate

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

What i meant by the religion thing as that people within the same religion believe different things

Impossible equation. People of the same religion and even of different relgions believe the same, the difference is in interpretation.

In our case, we are all MJ's fans, but we don't agree at all about the Cascios tracks, so there is absolutely nothing that can unite the believers and doubters on the Cascio level, contrary to the religions where similarities unite people rather than dividing them.

 

[larry141094]

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

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

I don't believe the Cascios are lying, and i have two reasons for that, firstly they have a clean record and nothing sketchy in their past (unlike the Jacksons who lie about virtually everything) and second in order to find someone that had that much resemblance to MJ's voice would take forever, the other thing to note is that Michael WAS living their during the period that they stated, so there is no denying that recording of those songs took place, just over processing of demo vocals is what they are.

 

[larry141094]

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.

It was content from my blog... im guessing you closed the thread then

 

[samhabib]

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

I don't believe the Cascios are lying, and i have two reasons for that, firstly they have a clean record and nothing sketchy in their past (unlike the Jacksons who lie about virtually everything) and second in order to find someone that had that much resemblance to MJ's voice would take forever, the other thing to note is that Michael WAS living their during the period that they stated, so there is no denying that recording of those songs took place, just over processing of demo vocals is what they are.

The Cascios had a clean record? Not in my book. Screwing MJ groupies, getting their names on numerous prescriptions for Michael and then registering songs two days after Michael Jackson died. That's not a clean record to me, mate. And that's all before we heard these bullshit songs!

The singer sounds identical to Jason Malachi. So they wouldn't have had to work hard in finding him.

There's no denying Michael recorded them? In your dreams, maybe. There's plenty of denying Michael recorded them. You only have to listen to them to know that.

 

[larry141094]

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

The Cascios had a clean record? Not in my book. Screwing MJ groupies, getting their names on numerous prescriptions for Michael and then registering songs two days after Michael Jackson died. That's not a clean record to me, mate. And that's all before we heard these bullshit songs!

The singer sounds identical to Jason Malachi. So they wouldn't have had to work hard in finding him.

There's no denying Michael recorded them? In your dreams, maybe. There's plenty of denying Michael recorded them. You only have to listen to them to know that.

Where did you get that tabloid trash?

UUMMM don't you mean Michael used their names as aliases to get his prescription drugs, what you said doesn't even make sense.

Already said it a million times, it aint him, i listen to JM as well as MJ EVERYDAY, and i can tell you the difference is obvious, the Cascio tracks are Michael, don't believe me? then put those three tracks on a playlist with a bunch of JM songs (from his critical album is easier) and put the playlist on repeat, after several repeats, the two distinct themselves from one another, trust me JM might sound like Michael, but the Cascio tracks have Michael's pronounciation, hey they might be overprocessed demo's but they are him.

 

[Tom]

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

Where did you get that tabloid trash?

UUMMM don't you mean Michael used their names as aliases to get his prescription drugs, what you said doesn't even make sense.

Already said it a million times, it aint him, i listen to JM as well as MJ EVERYDAY, and i can tell you the difference is obvious, the Cascio tracks are Michael, don't believe me? then put those three tracks on a playlist with a bunch of JM songs (from his critical album is easier) and put the playlist on repeat, after several repeats, the two distinct themselves from one another, trust me JM might sound like Michael, but the Cascio tracks have Michael's pronounciation, hey they might be overprocessed demo's but they are him.

They don't have Michaels pronunciation at all. Find a Cascio track where "Michael" says a ck sound as if it were a ch sound, like the Real Michael Jackson does.

The vibrato on both Malachi and "Michael" 's tracks are the same.

And both Behind the Mask and Hollywood Tonight are over-processed demos, but both clearly the real Michael Jackson.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

They don't have Michaels pronunciation at all. Find a Cascio track where "Michael" says a ck sound as if it were a ch sound, like the Real Michael Jackson does.

The vibrato on both Malachi and "Michael" 's tracks are the same.

And both Behind the Mask and Hollywood Tonight are over-processed demos, but both clearly the real Michael Jackson.

I second that. The pronunciation isn't Michael's.

 

[ivy]

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

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.

so improbable but not impossible

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.

legal hat on : this is an statement coming from a lawyer, they wouldn't name people that they do not have authorization to speak for.

People who questioned the tracks made it known by their own statements/ tweets / posts etc.

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

not necessarily. seen the edited part in my previous post (will repost it below) in Scenario 2 you can argue for motive.

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?

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.

It does make sense - the raw vocals versus the modified heavily edited vocals. They could have thought that the "melodyne processed vocals" not to be Michael but not question them in the raw format. A lot of "believers" mention this as a possibility.

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.

Teddy on his twitter said that "he (and the others in the room) went along with Taryll" - meaning they agreed with him because Taryll wasn't listening to them. So Teddy himself says what Taryll said, it's just he didn't mean it and did it to avoid confrontation.

And there's no rule that says either one has to be a liar, they could be telling the events from their own perspectives and be telling the truth but it might be sounding like a lie to the other person.

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.

I answered this in a previous post to lom kit. They don't have to make anything public. The only way to get that information is through a lawsuit.

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.

It's not that easy - if it was I wouldn't be spending 2 years in my research. The example was to show about identifying "the difference with similar concepts that provide similar outcomes" - it's differentiating between love and like (not love and hate) or between happiness and gratitude (not happiness and sadness)

It's similar in regards when they are testing the program with a non-mj vocal they would have used a vocal that's similar so that they can tell the testing is able to differentiate between the two.

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?

with one side it wouldn't be a "debate" would it? where's the fun if all people agree with you?

The Cascios had a clean record? Not in my book. getting their names on numerous prescriptions for Michael

Please stop this and focus your arguments on the vocals/lyrics. Michael did have a prescription with "Prince Jackson" name on it. So what by your logic Prince was supplying drugs to his dad? Several other people's (latest staff members) names on the prescriptions as well , it doesn't mean that they were even aware of such thing going on. you are picking one bit of information to make Cascio's sound bad and you don't realize you are also introducing blame for other people. Either everyone is guilty of "getting their names on prescriptions" or no one is.

Edit : I also didn't know that having sex was a show of bad character.

 

[samhabib]

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

Where did you get that tabloid trash?

UUMMM don't you mean Michael used their names as aliases to get his prescription drugs, what you said doesn't even make sense.

Already said it a million times, it aint him, i listen to JM as well as MJ EVERYDAY, and i can tell you the difference is obvious, the Cascio tracks are Michael, don't believe me? then put those three tracks on a playlist with a bunch of JM songs (from his critical album is easier) and put the playlist on repeat, after several repeats, the two distinct themselves from one another, trust me JM might sound like Michael, but the Cascio tracks have Michael's pronounciation, hey they might be overprocessed demo's but they are him.

I got that from the same tabloid trash that you hold against the Jacksons. See how it works?

Like I said earlier, find one song that Michael Jackson sings that sounds ANYTHING like that isolated lead video on Breaking News. Until you do that, stop wasting your time and mine. Just go and find one audio example of Michael singing anything like that. That's all. Might be a bit difficult for someone who claims it sounds different, hence, it's Michael Jackson. One hell of a theory, that.

 

[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!

I'll repost this just in case nobody saw it. I believe this to be a good example of this debate, so I ask anybody that clicks on these two links if they believe the singers to be different actors or not, as this is a good way of comparing similar pieces of music.

 

[larry141094]

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

I got that from the same tabloid trash that you hold against the Jacksons. See how it works?

Like I said earlier, find one song that Michael Jackson sings that sounds ANYTHING like that isolated lead video on Breaking News. Until you do that, stop wasting your time and mine. Just go and find one audio example of Michael singing anything like that. That's all. Might be a bit difficult for someone who claims it sounds different, hence, it's Michael Jackson. One hell of a theory, that.

Ok lets look at this on a musical level shall we?

Listen to Almost There, Human Nature, Man In The Mirror, Will You Be There and Speechless.

How do you know that the singer on Almost There is the same as the one on speechless? You don't, you were told it, but there is no comparison, Michael's voice was always changing because of age and plastic surgery, you say there is no other songs like the Cascio songs, others will say Hollywood Tonight isn't Michael because it doesn't sound like him, someone even went as far as to say Best Of Joy wasn't him. It's pure speculation and has no solid proof aside from a bunch of people blaming a guy that sounds similar to michael and has said that he wasn't part of the Cascio tracks.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

so improbable but not impossible

In the case I mentioned I would say 100% impossible for the reasons I already explained.

legal hat on : this is an statement coming from a lawyer, they wouldn't name people that they do not have authorization to speak for.

People who questioned the tracks made it known by their own statements/ tweets / posts etc.

The fact is however that we still don't know who diasgreed or questioned them.

not necessarily. seen the edited part in my previous post (will repost it below) in Scenario 2 you can argue for motive.

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?

Ok, several scenarios are indeed possible, nevertheless, when everything has been said and done, the tracks have remained questioned.

It does make sense - the raw vocals versus the modified heavily edited vocals. They could have thought that the "melodyne processed vocals" not to be Michael but not question them in the raw format. A lot of "believers" mention this as a possibility.

Heavily edited? What for? To sound unMichael's on a Michael's album? Well, congratulations, they succeeded. Now, was it worthy?

Teddy on his twitter said that "he (and the others in the room) went along with Taryll" - meaning they agreed with him because Taryll wasn't listening to them. So Teddy himself says what Taryll said, it's just he didn't mean it and did it to avoid confrontation.

And there's no rule that says either one has to be a liar, they could be telling the events from their own perspectives and be telling the truth but it might be sounding like a lie to the other person.

Taryll expressed himself on more than one occasions firmly sticking to the fact that Teddy knew they weren't Michael's vocals. Taryll also said that Teddy did it hoping they would give him real tracks afterwards. So, if Taryll is not a liar, it must be true what he said.

I answered this in a previous post to lom kit. They don't have to make anything public. The only way to get that information is through a lawsuit.

Well, no one is claiming that they are obliged to publish the results, but given the fact that they take us, fans, seriously, the least they could do is to publish the results.

It's not that easy - if it was I wouldn't be spending 2 years in my research. The example was to show about identifying "the difference with similar concepts that provide similar outcomes" - it's differentiating between love and like (not love and hate) or between happiness and gratitude (not happiness and sadness)

I wasn't adventuring myself into saying whether it is easy or difficult. I am taking your word for it and believe you that it is indeed difficult, but I fail to see any similarity with the issue about the vocals. Sorry.

It's similar in regards when they are testing the program with a non-mj vocal they would have used a vocal that's similar so that they can tell the testing is able to differentiate between the two.

When tracks are questioned and the claims arise pretending that a sound-alike sings the songs, just for the sake of being as objective as possible, it would have been better to double check the vocal comparisons and not only to seal the results of the comparisons with only Michael's vocals. Contacting Jason instead of comparing his vocals is unscientific anyway.

However, had they done the vocal comparison with a sound-alike as you mentioned the probability of it, then why would they bother contacting Jason to ask if he had to do anything with the songs?

Either they checked and the results were matching both Jason's and Jackson's vocals so they contacted Jason to have an explanation. Or they did not check Jason's vocals and simply contacted him and asked him to verbally confirm he had nothing to do with the tracks. Is verbal confirmation enough to draw conclusions? How scientific is that?

 

[mjjesamor]

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

With regards to what Taryll said about Teddy agreeing (on the promise of getting to work on real MJ tracks) to go along with the Cascio tracks despite not hearing MJ on them. This ties in nicely with something Teddy said in recent weeks on twitter when tweeting about his mix of Hollywood Tonight not being used. He said he was 'used' to get the album finished and he was wondering if now that they got what they wanted they would keep their promise....and he said he wasn't talking about sony. Coincidence? I think not. so who did Teddy mean? The Estate obviously. I mean does Teddy really expect people to believe that he did this project for free? Teddy is not trustworthy on this. He had a motive to lie before and he has an even bigger one now. The Cascios also had motive as did the Estate. (i personally believe the Estate were initially fooled but got cocky and went along with it after the fact) Taryll on the other hand had no motive to lie. Neither did Corey Rooney or the other Jacksons that spoke against the tracks.... Or Jennifer Batten. Or Quincy who couldn't even tell if it was or wasn't Mj.... Or half the hardcore fanbase. Believers say the nephews lied because they were jealous they weren't on the album etc etc If that were true wouldn't they be blowing any involvement in potential future projects too by speaking out like this? I would also like to point out that although they did say they did not believe the tracks were their Uncle they were respectful in the way they did it. I think they were genuine. I think they were sincerely upset and like those of us that haven't fallen for this bs they felt it was an insult to MJ and his legacy. I trust them over the Cascios any day. The Cascios and Teddy looked like they were crapping their pants on Oprah. ..or to out it more politely they looked very edgy and nervous. You could have cut the tension in that studio with a knife.
Just reading Bumper's post now.... does anyone really believe that Weizman called Malachi on the phone to ask him? I mean really ffs that is one of the most ridiculous things i ever heard. I mean c'mon....try to imagine that phonecall.

 

[ivy]

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

Taryll expressed himself on more than one occasions firmly sticking to the fact that Teddy knew they weren't Michael's vocals. Taryll also said that Teddy did it hoping they would give him real tracks afterwards. So, if Taryll is not a liar, it must be true what he said.

and to that you need to add what Teddy says. Like I said everyone will tell the events from their own perspective. Taryll might add his interpretation which might not be exactly what Teddy said or thought. I wouldn't go and call anyone a "liar" , it might simply be a case of personal interpretation difference.

Well, no one is claiming that they are obliged to publish the results, but given the fact that they take us, fans, seriously, the least they could do is to publish the results.

I'll post something about the record companies later on ( personal life experience - not really that important in this discussion - so don't stay up for it)

Honestly as far as I can see any attempt to try to change anyone's opinion is futile. I asked this question before and let's think about it
- if they showed hand written lyrics would it change your opinion ? or will you say "yes he perhaps wrote the songs but didn't sing it"
- if they showed pictures would it change your opinion? or say that "we already knew he was in the studio but he didn't sing them"
- work tapes? "yes he thought about them but didn't sing them"

and how about the results? for a moment assume that they released them and it indeed show a perfectly scientific test that showed the vocals to be Michaels? will you believe it? or will you say that they didn't account for Jason or that the experts were paid etc?

so in short would it really make a difference?

Contacting Jason instead of comparing his vocals is unscientific anyway.

However, had they done the vocal comparison with a sound-alike as you mentioned the probability of it, then why would they bother contacting Jason to ask if he had to do anything with the songs?

Either they checked and the results were matching both Jason's and Jackson's vocals so they contacted Jason to have an explanation. Or they did not check Jason's vocals and simply contacted him and asked him to verbally confirm he had nothing to do with the tracks. Is verbal confirmation enough to draw conclusions? How scientific is that?

Regardless of who and how similar the non-mj control vocals was, legal perspective : It's due diligence principle. If someone introduced "Jason" as a possibility they'll have the need to contact him. Assume a worst case scenario that "Cascio's faked the vocals with Jason and fooled people MJ worked with and the scientific tests" so sony/estate released an album with non-mj vocals (consumer fraud) and "it went to court" , Sony/estate could say that they satisfied the due diligence and contacted Jason when his name was said and he lied to them. By this they would avoid being responsible for a fraud as they didn't know it and they did their best to check it.

 

[mjjesamor]

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

Yeah Ivy your worst case scenario of why the Estate might have called Malachi is probably exactly why they SAID they did.... to cover their asses if this did go to court. To show that they too were fooled. And this is exactly what i think did happen. Let's not forget that they are claiming to have done this at a time when not a single fan had heard the tracks and publically nobody had even suggested it was Malachi yet so why did they do that? They claim that some 'persons' had suggested it might be him and so they just decided to give him a buzz. Yeah sure. Pull the other one. They didn't, they just said they did. They know the truth. And their silence since the 'official statement' speaks volumes. We're still waiting for the update here. We are still searching for the truth........

 

[azsummergirl]

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

@samhabib i literally laugh out loud every time i ready your reaction to someone thinking that the acapella version of BN is michael. "YOU THINK THAT'S MICHAEL JACKSON?!"

HAHA, i feel exactly the same. i cannot even fathom in any way, on any planet, under any circumstances, how anybody could think that BN accappella sounds like michael. it's honestly ludicrous and exasperating. i'm listening to it again, i can't even get through the whole thing. it's simultaneously hilarious and sickening.

Ok lets look at this on a musical level shall we?

Listen to Almost There, Human Nature, Man In The Mirror, Will You Be There and Speechless.

How do you know that the singer on Almost There is the same as the one on speechless? You don't, you were told it, but there is no comparison, Michael's voice was always changing because of age and plastic surgery, you say there is no other songs like the Cascio songs, others will say Hollywood Tonight isn't Michael because it doesn't sound like him, someone even went as far as to say Best Of Joy wasn't him. It's pure speculation and has no solid proof aside from a bunch of people blaming a guy that sounds similar to michael and has said that he wasn't part of the Cascio tracks.

really? like really and truly? michael is michael. yes, i can tell that almost there michael and speechless michael are the same person. it's NOT speculation. how someone can claim that BoJ isn't michael is just . . . i REALLY don't get it. i don't.

i feel like i'm arguing that the pope is catholic. it is what it is.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

and to that you need to add what Teddy says. Like I said everyone will tell the events from their own perspective. Taryll might add his interpretation which might not be exactly what Teddy said or thought. I wouldn't go and call anyone a "liar" , it might simply be a case of personal interpretation difference.

I think when someone misinterpret ssomoene's words, especially when the person explains it to you, all you can do is admit that there indeed was a misinterpretation. Taryll does not seem to accept Teddy's explanations of misinterpretation.

Honestly as far as I can see any attempt to try to change anyone's opinion is futile. I asked this question before and let's think about it
- if they showed hand written lyrics would it change your opinion ? or will you say "yes he perhaps wrote the songs but didn't sing it"
- if they showed pictures would it change your opinion? or say that "we already knew he was in the studio but he didn't sing them"
- work tapes? "yes he thought about them but didn't sing them"

and how about the results? for a moment assume that they released them and it indeed show a perfectly scientific test that showed the vocals to be Michaels? will you believe it? or will you say that they didn't account for Jason or that the experts were paid etc?

so in short would it really make a difference?

It would make a difference. I would believe the results only under the condition that they also compare Jason Malachi's waveformat and publish the results of which songs' vocals precisely did they compare.

And if despite all, it shows they are Mike's vocals, I would certainly heavily criticize their heavily processing job which litterally insulted Michael's voice by twisting it into something unMichael's.

Before the album's release, many fans expressed their concerns about using autotune and other softwares. To our general surprise, we got worse than autotuned voice. We got heavily processed voice closer to Jason's than Michael's.

Was it worthy? I am asking again the question.

Regardless of who and how similar the non-mj control vocals was, legal perspective : It's due diligence principle. If someone introduced "Jason" as a possibility they'll have the need to contact him. Assume a worst case scenario that "Cascio's faked the vocals with Jason and fooled people MJ worked with and the scientific tests" so sony/estate released an album with non-mj vocals (consumer fraud) and "it went to court" , Sony/estate could say that they satisfied the due diligence and contacted Jason when his name was said and he lied to them. By this they would avoid being responsible for a fraud as they didn't know it and they did their best to check it.

Yes, I am perfectly aware of the fact that if you lie today that tomorrow it could turn against you in court.

But you completely ignored my point, I'll rephrase it:

When you are in the middle of a dilemma to know if fake vocals are on the track, why would they bother contacting Jason? Did they really expect that Jason was going to answer "yes, I recorded those songs."?

According to your own words, they probably checked soundalikes, and if they bothered contacting Jason, they probably checked Jason's vocals as they were apparently aware of his vocal abilities. So if they did it and saw the results which supposedly corroborated that those are Michael's vocals, why in heaven would anyone contact Jason to ask him if he was involved in those tracks?

There are two possible answers:

A) The results matched his (and Michael's) vocals, so they contacted him to affirm or deny.

B) They haven't compared anyone else's vocals than Michael's. But why would they contact soundalikes then if the study was conclusive? Most probably because they are still doubting the results.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Yeah Ivy your worst case scenario of why the Estate might have called Malachi is probably exactly why they SAID they did.... to cover their asses if this did go to court. To show that they too were fooled. And this is exactly what i think did happen. Let's not forget that they are claiming to have done this at a time when not a single fan had heard the tracks and publically nobody had even suggested it was Malachi yet so why did they do that? They claim that some 'persons' had suggested it might be him and so they just decided to give him a buzz. Yeah sure. Pull the other one. They didn't, they just said they did. They know the truth. And their silence since the 'official statement' speaks volumes. We're still waiting for the update here. We are still searching for the truth........

Good point. Exactly my question too, why would they bother contacting him? Indeed, even before fans came to the same conclusion that the voice on the Cascio tracks sounded closer to Malachi's than Michael's?

And indeed, we fans did really not get enough info about this whole mess.

 

[ivy]

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

Let's not forget that they are claiming to have done this at a time when not a single fan had heard the tracks and publically nobody had even suggested it was Malachi yet so why did they do that? They claim that some 'persons' had suggested it might be him and so they just decided to give him a buzz.

Good point. Exactly my question too, why would they bother contacting him? Indeed, even before fans came to the same conclusion that the voice on the Cascio tracks sounded closer to Malachi's than Michael's?

And indeed, we fans did really not get enough info about this whole mess.

Guys you are forgetting something. The night before Breaking News streamed TJ Jackson said on his twitter that he believed the vocals to be Jason Malachi. Either he said that to Estate/Sony before or Estate/Sony hearing that might have contacted Jason between the time of TJ's public statement and their statement.

Taryll does not seem to accept Teddy's explanations of misinterpretation.

and is this surprising? do you expect Taryll come out and say "I was wrong Teddy didn't mean that, I was wrong to call him a liar and Teddy always thought the vocals to be Michael". It wouldn't help his position. plus Teddy described Taryll as "not listening to anyone". I say Taryll accepting a (possible) misinterpretation is as likely as samhabib saying "this is Michael". - not gonna happen.

And if despite all, it shows they are Mike's vocals, I would certainly heavily criticize their heavily processing job which litterally insulted Michael's voice by twisting it into something unMichael's.

and that criticizing is fine.

But you completely ignored my point, I'll rephrase it:

When you are in the middle of a dilemma to know if fake vocals are on the track, why would they bother contacting Jason? Did they really expect that Jason was going to answer "yes, I recorded those songs."?

I actually answered it saying "due diligence" but I guess I should have given an explanation as well. It's got nothing to do with how Jason might answer, it's about asking him that question. in layman's terms it's called "covering your bases"

think about like this : You fill out a job application and it asks you "are you ever convicted of a crime?" you check "no" when you actually have a conviction. by this question company can argue that they showed reasonable responsibility(due diligence concept) as they inquired about your past and you are the one that lied and made them believe otherwise.

think about any government form that comes with a little disclaimer that basically says "this above information is correct to my best knowledge and I can be kept responsible if it turns out I'm lying" - it's just like that.

According to your own words, they probably checked soundalikes, and if they bothered contacting Jason, they probably checked Jason's vocals as they were apparently aware of his vocal abilities. So if they did it and saw the results which supposedly corroborated that those are Michael's vocals, why in heaven would anyone contact Jason to ask him if he was involved in those tracks?

due diligence defense in criminal cases (which a consumer fraud case is) requires demonstration of doing "everything possible to prevent it". It's a high standard. So even though they could have run Jason's vocals and got "not him", they would have contacted him and do any other thing that would come into an average person's mind. It's not suspicious if you look from a legal perspective.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

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

With regards to what Taryll said about Teddy agreeing (on the promise of getting to work on real MJ tracks) to go along with the Cascio tracks despite not hearing MJ on them. This ties in nicely with something Teddy said in recent weeks on twitter when tweeting about his mix of Hollywood Tonight not being used. He said he was 'used' to get the album finished and he was wondering if now that they got what they wanted they would keep their promise....and he said he wasn't talking about sony. Coincidence? I think not. so who did Teddy mean? The Estate obviously. I mean does Teddy really expect people to believe that he did this project for free? Teddy is not trustworthy on this. He had a motive to lie before and he has an even bigger one now. The Cascios also had motive as did the Estate. (i personally believe the Estate were initially fooled but got cocky and went along with it after the fact) Taryll on the other hand had no motive to lie. Neither did Corey Rooney or the other Jacksons that spoke against the tracks.... Or Jennifer Batten. Or Quincy who couldn't even tell if it was or wasn't Mj.... Or half the hardcore fanbase. Believers say the nephews lied because they were jealous they weren't on the album etc etc If that were true wouldn't they be blowing any involvement in potential future projects too by speaking out like this? I would also like to point out that although they did say they did not believe the tracks were their Uncle they were respectful in the way they did it. I think they were genuine. I think they were sincerely upset and like those of us that haven't fallen for this bs they felt it was an insult to MJ and his legacy. I trust them over the Cascios any day. The Cascios and Teddy looked like they were crapping their pants on Oprah. ..or to out it more politely they looked very edgy and nervous. You could have cut the tension in that studio with a knife.
Just reading Bumper's post now.... does anyone really believe that Weizman called Malachi on the phone to ask him? I mean really ffs that is one of the most ridiculous things i ever heard. I mean c'mon....try to imagine that phonecall.

What motive does the Estate have? Keep in mind that half of those that are in charge of the Estate, fought to keep the Cascio tracks off the album. Therefore, the Estate having a motive is thrown out the window, explain to me what motive The Cascio's may have? Don't say "to get his name out there by working with Michael", Angelikson productions had already made a name for itself with the work from the Thriller 25 album. So what exactly are they lying for?

Whereas one can argue, doesn't make it true, but one can argue that The Jacksons are solely against it because of the reality that they had no creative input into the album, other than Jackie, reportedly. Who for some odd reason, hasn't said anything. When you think about it, who's the real sellout? The Cascio's? Or those who know something is wrong but won't do anything about it for the sake of a paycheck that comes at the end of an annual year?

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.

We obviously have a difference of opinion, one side seemingly can't respect that though, tough noogies.

For the record, I do believe it's Michael on these songs.

 

[love is magical]

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

am so busy with my new home during the weekend. have so many posts to read... amd catching up now... heehee...

how's everyone doing?

 

[samhabib]

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

We obviously have a difference of opinion, one side seemingly can't respect that though, tough noogies.

For the record, I do believe it's Michael on these songs.

The only person you have a difference of opinion with is yourself from about 2 months ago when you didn't believe it was Michael on these songs.*

Which opinion do you want me to respect? The first one or the second, altered, one?

 

[mjjesamor]

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

Clutching at straws? Half the estate is one person! What were they thinkng? The mind boggles! The estate didn't realise until very late in the game. They made a bad decision. Shock horror! Have to go now... More later

 

[Pentum]

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.

Actually, most of TII was NOT lip-synched.

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' FULLY LIVE
Jam Lip-Synched with small live part
They Don't Care About Us Lip-Synched with LIVE parts (maybe fully live?)
Human Nature FULLY LIVE
Smooth Criminal FULLY LIVE
The Way You Make Me Feel Lip-Synched with INTROS LIVE & Ad Libs LIVE
I Want You Back FULLY LIVE
The Love You Save FULLY LIVE
I'll Be There FULLY LIVE
I Just Can't Stop Loving You FULLY LIVE
Thriller Lip-Synched
Beat It FULLY LIVE
Black Or White FULLY LIVE
Bille Jean Lip Synched with live ad libs
Man In The Mirror Lip-Synched.

You see? Mostly live in the movie.

The songs that are lip-synched are still not actually lip-synched, but dubbed for the movie. MJ did everything live like in the Dangerous rehearsal.

And allow me to quote this:

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

Do you really notice anything different? No, because his voice just didn't change that much.

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.

Not very different. If you have heard a lot of MJ interviews, recordings, watched different videos, you'll hear that there was no problem for him sounding deeper than usual. He probably wanted to sound more "manly" since he was nervous and it was the first time in a long time.

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

Exactly, do I need to remind you?

[youtube]my9TmBP_Hds[/youtube]

I thought of making a higher quality version and bringing either Let Me Go or Monster to the same tempo as the other song. Would be even more shocking?

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.

Do not forget this! Notice how deep he goes, notice how he almost sounds like when he goes crazy in Slave To The Rhythm!

From 0:30:
[youtube]BQheeNC_kF0[/youtube]

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

Exactly. I mean, have you heard the "HHHHHHHHhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeee-eeeeeeee-eeeeeee-eeeeeeiii" in Breaking News? Guy's sittin' on the toilet while doing it!?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Guys you are forgetting something. The night before Breaking News streamed TJ Jackson said on his twitter that he believed the vocals to be Jason Malachi. Either he said that to Estate/Sony before or Estate/Sony hearing that might have contacted Jason between the time of TJ's public statement and their statement.

I actually did not wait for Taryll to say that the vocals were fake to hear it by myself. Indeed, I even did not know that Taryll said so. So, without being aware of what Taryll had to say I heard the same thing --coincidence n°1

Furthermore, when the BN was streamed my first reaction on this very board was "this is Jason Malachi". If you go back to some of my posts you will see that I was among the firsts who suggested to compare the vocals from "Breaking News" with those on "Let me let go". At that time I even didn't know that Taryll also talked about Jason Malachi at all --coincidence n°2

On other threads I discovered that many shared exactly the same impressions without necessarily having read my posts or knowing what Taryll said on tweeter --coincidence n°3

Now, all those who actually are questioning those vocals, we do not know each other, we did not gather to organize an anti-Cascio campaign. The only thing that unites us is that we hear the same thing before we could even have the time to influence each other's minds! This has been neglected and attempted to be discredited by using the argument of influence from Taryll or each other's opinions exchange. That very argument is beyond weak, as there is a huge anachrony there -- we cannot be brainwashed by someone before even knowing what that someone thinks about a given situation.

and is this surprising? do you expect Taryll come out and say "I was wrong Teddy didn't mean that, I was wrong to call him a liar and Teddy always thought the vocals to be Michael". It wouldn't help his position. plus Teddy described Taryll as "not listening to anyone". I say Taryll accepting a (possible) misinterpretation is as likely as samhabib saying "this is Michael". - not gonna happen.

Well calling Teddy a liar doesn't help his position either. So your argument isn't very convincing.

and that criticizing is fine.

If it were true that vocals were heavily processed so much that unrecognizable vocals have been obtained (pretty close to Malachi's actually), doesn't it bother you? Was it worthy to put those heavily processed vocals on the first Michael's posthumous album and drop other potential hits which leaked?

And this is where I question Cascio's friendship. Why doing this to Michael on the first posthumous album? Why not going for another project, like a bonus CD something in the same line as "private" or "home videos" to show Michael under another spotlight? Doesn't it bother you all this? Don't you ask yourself those questions?

I actually answered it saying "due diligence" but I guess I should have given an explanation as well. It's got nothing to do with how Jason might answer, it's about asking him that question. in layman's terms it's called "covering your bases"

think about like this : You fill out a job application and it asks you "are you ever convicted of a crime?" you check "no" when you actually have a conviction. by this question company can argue that they showed reasonable responsibility(due diligence concept) as they inquired about your past and you are the one that lied and made them believe otherwise.

think about any government form that comes with a little disclaimer that basically says "this above information is correct to my best knowledge and I can be kept responsible if it turns out I'm lying" - it's just like that.

You are either contradicting or twisting what you have been saying so far.
You cannot on the one hand scientifically have overwhelming and objective results saying those are Michael Jackson's vocals, and on the other, waste your time contacting peole who are supposedly already proven not to be on those tracks.

Indeed, if you catch your husband in bed with another lady making love, and on top of that you take a picture, and he tells you:"Wait honey, it is not what you think!", the fact that you have an undeniable overwhelming and objective proof that he IS having an affair with THAT lady, you are not going to waste your time on contacting other ladies when you already know with whom he was in bed and when you can prove it objectively with the picture you had taken.

So calling Jason, despite overwhelming and objective proof that it is Michael on those tracks -according to the audiologists- for the reasons you evoked are simply not convincing. Either way, in order to take the decision to contact Jason, it would actually mean that the audiologists' results were however questioned leading automatically to the conclusion that the results are not overwhelmingly convincing that the vocals are Michael's.

due diligence defense in criminal cases (which a consumer fraud case is) requires demonstration of doing "everything possible to prevent it". It's a high standard. So even though they could have run Jason's vocals and got "not him", they would have contacted him and do any other thing that would come into an average person's mind. It's not suspicious if you look from a legal perspective.

I understand very well the concept of doing everything possible to prevent fraud.

But, firstly, aren't the results clearly indicating, let's say 95% that those vocals are Michael's? If so, due dilligence defense is not necessary at all.

Secondly, if I follow the reasoning of due dilligence defense in order to prevent fraud case, wouldn't be more logical in terms of "doing everything possible to prevent it" simply not release the tracks and release other available tracks instead untill I am 100% sure that they are Michael's and at least test Jason's vocals too instead of simply contacting him? By not releasing them (or/and testing Jason's vocals too), I did all possible to prevent fraud, but this is not the case. And, if I use the argument of the audiologists' results as a proof that vocals are Michael, then due dilligence defense, as I stated above, is not necessary. You cannot have it both ways: have a proof and have a doubt. It's either one or the other.

 

[samhabib]

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

Ok lets look at this on a musical level shall we?

Listen to Almost There, Human Nature, Man In The Mirror, Will You Be There and Speechless.

How do you know that the singer on Almost There is the same as the one on speechless? You don't, you were told it, but there is no comparison, Michael's voice was always changing because of age and plastic surgery, you say there is no other songs like the Cascio songs, others will say Hollywood Tonight isn't Michael because it doesn't sound like him, someone even went as far as to say Best Of Joy wasn't him. It's pure speculation and has no solid proof aside from a bunch of people blaming a guy that sounds similar to michael and has said that he wasn't part of the Cascio tracks.

I gave you a challenge to find one Michael Jackson vocal that sounds like the isolated lead vocal of Breaking News that I posted. Why haven't you posted one? Just one? That's all I ask.

As for the rest of your post, it just proves us right even further. For a few years Michael sounded as he did on We're Almost There. When he grew up his voice developed, but he still had the skill and dexterity of previous years. When he sang Speechless in 2001 he still sounded the same singing it in 2009. Yet you're claiming his voice changed in 2007 and 2007 alone? And then in 2009 he was able to sound as he did in 2001? How does that help your argument.

That's completely nonsensical. Completely.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

am so busy with my new home during the weekend. have so many posts to read... amd catching up now... heehee...

how's everyone doing?

hello

 

[love is magical]

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

hello

boy, you guys have been super productive in the past few days... i'm still catching up with the posts. it's not easy to get through all the linguistic and legal mumbo jumbo after two days of hard work (JK) :cheeky:

 

[ivy]

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

That very argument is beyond weak, as there is a huge anachrony there -- we cannot be brainwashed by someone before even knowing what that someone thinks about a given situation.

my argument wasn't about brainwashing at all.
You asked "why sony/estate even contact Jason Malachi before the song release and fans started mentioning his name"
I said "it could be because TJ Jackson mentioned Jason Malachi's name before song release and the fans".

Again no brain washing argument , just explanation of why the estate/sony might have reached out to Jason.

Well calling Teddy a liar doesn't help his position either. So your argument isn't very convincing.

I think there's another misunderstanding here.
Saying " Teddy told me the vocals were Michael's and now he's lying" helps Taryll
Saying " I misunderstood Teddy , he always thought the vocals were Michael's" doesn't help Taryll.

If it were true that vocals were heavily processed so much that unrecognizable vocals have been obtained (pretty close to Malachi's actually), doesn't it bother you? Was it worthy to put those heavily processed vocals on the first Michael's posthumous album and drop other potential hits which leaked?

I'm going to answer this in the post I plan to write.

And this is where I question Cascio's friendship. Why doing this to Michael on the first posthumous album? Why not going for another project, like a bonus CD something in the same line as "private" or "home videos" to show Michael under another spotlight? Doesn't it bother you all this? Don't you ask yourself those questions?

What makes you think Cascio's had such decision making power? As far as we know even one estate executor wanted those songs not be included but yet they were included.

I gave this scenario before Cascio's giving the songs to Sony, signing the release and then the songs are edited etc - they wouldn't have a legal say.

You are either contradicting or twisting what you have been saying so far.
You cannot on the one hand scientifically have overwhelming and objective results saying those are Michael Jackson's vocals, and on the other, waste your time contacting peole who are supposedly already proven not to be on those tracks.

I think the misunderstanding here is coming from legal and scientific being two different things (and that I'm sometimes explaining scientific process and sometimes giving legal info). Legal doesn't always have to be scientific.

Best example will be police catching a suspect. They would interrogate him, ask for an alibi, ask for a DNA, check that alibi and run the DNA.

Now in this example DNA will be scientific part and the strongest evidence but the police wouldn't just sit down and depend on the DNA test, they would still investigate and still collaborate the evidence. And even DNA would be the scientific test it might not be perfect - follow the case of Amanda Knox ? She convicted of murder based on DNA but now argues that the DNA test was contaminated. As you can see just because a test is scientific it doesn't make it perfect or enough on its own. You'll need another collaborating evidence.

As we can see from this example everything done from legal perspective doesn't need to be scientific, non-scientific actions can be also done to satisfy "doing everything possible" for due diligence concept.

I understand very well the concept of doing everything possible to prevent fraud.

But, firstly, aren't the results clearly indicating, let's say 95% that those vocals are Michael's? If so, due dilligence defense is not necessary at all.

See above. And you very well know that no scientific test comes with 100% certainty and you introduced the possibility of "error" in your previous posts.

So "a reasonable human being" cannot argue in a court of law that doing a scientific test is the "everything" that they could have done to investigate the issue at hand.

I wrote that "doing everything" is a high standard and saying "well we had a scientific test done and I thought that was enough" wouldn't cut it.

Look to estate statement - one estate expert report , one sony estate report (not one but two separate independent testing), asking people that worked with Michael previously for educated opinions (do that regardless of a scientific research) and contact the person who alleged to be faking the vocals.

So if -when they go to court they can say "look judge we did one scientific test, we verified it with a second independent test, we contacted people Michael worked with and knew his voice we asked their educated opinions, we even contacted the person who was alleged to be on the vocals and as you can see we did everything that we can do they all said Michael"

That's satisfying due diligence. "we did one test and it gave us 95% certainty and we said ourselves that was enough" isn't.

Secondly, if I follow the reasoning of due dilligence defense in order to prevent fraud case, wouldn't be more logical in terms of "doing everything possible to prevent it" simply not release the tracks and release other available tracks instead untill I am 100% sure that they are Michael's and at least test Jason's vocals too instead of simply contacting him?

(we don't know if such test is done or not) and seen the last paragraph I wrote above? what makes you think that they weren't 100% sure after all that. Remember Epic statement that said "they were confident in their examination".

And, if I use the argument of the audiologists' results as a proof that vocals are Michael, then due dilligence defense, as I stated above, is not necessary. You cannot have it both ways: have a proof and have a doubt. It's either one or the other.

Explained this above . and it's not proof and doubt. It's proof and collaborating that proof.

 

[Tony R]

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

Ivy, from a legal perspective, isn't it the case that it's not always about giving 100% proof but about 'reasonable doubt'?