Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Kapital77]

In the Mjhideout forum (Spanish forum) the answer about how many fans thinks the vocals are fake? IS CLEAR :

60,26 % Thinks it´s not MJ in the Cascio´s tracks.
23,08 % Thinks it´s MJ in the Cascio´s tracks.

 

[love is magical]

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

Throw Bad in the coffin with me

Now, I'm getting greedy. I want to have BAD in the coffin with me too. Wait... actually I want the entire Jackson 5, Jacksons and Michael Jackson catalogue with me... lol...

 

[Arklove]

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

Now, I'm getting greedy. I want to have BAD in the coffin with me too. Wait... actually I want the entire Jackson 5, Jacksons and Michael Jackson catalogue with me... lol...

Oh, I know...After I said Bad, I was like....'how will I live without ITC ad libs?'

Yeah, just throw them all in!

 

[love is magical]

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

Oh, I know...After I said Bad, I was like....'how will I live without ITC ad libs?'

Yeah, just throw them all in!

They better get a roomy coffin for me... Coz, I want my DVD collections to be thrown in too...

 

[Arklove]

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

They better get a roomy coffin for me... Coz, I want my DVD collections to be thrown in too...

ooooh, yes, I forgot about the videos....Come Together, anyone? MJ in vinyl

 

[love is magical]

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

ooooh, yes, I forgot about the videos....Come Together, anyone? MJ in vinyl

Lol... we need to crawl back to the manhood thread if we continue our discusssion on come together... :wub:

 

[ivy]

Did recent Dr. Freeze interview is mentioned here? It's in French and is translated to English automatically by Google (perhaps someone can translate it better)

Q : Filmiez-vous vos sessions d'enregistrement?

F : Non, aucune caméra n'était autorisée. Vous savez, il n'aimait pas être pris en photo et être filmé en studio. Par conséquent, c'était interdit.

Q: Do you Shoot your recording sessions?

F: No, no cameras were allowed. You know, he disliked being photographed and being filmed in the studio. Therefore, it was forbidden.

Q : Avait-il des demandes de matériels spécifiques pour les enregistrements, comme par exemple des microphones ou des instruments précis　? Avait-il des exigences particulières　?

F : Non, il s'en fichait tant que ça sonnait bien. Il aurait pu chanter quelque chose dans son portable et l'enregistrer comme ça, ça ne le gênait pas tant que c'était une bonne mélodie ou un tube en puissance.

Q: Did he have specific hardware demands for records, such as microphones or instruments accurate? Were there any special requirements?

F: No, he did not care as it sounded good. He could sing something in his notebook and save it like that, it did not bother him as it was a good melody or a tube power.

 

[Arklove]

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

Lol... we need to crawl back to the manhood thread if we continue our discusssion on come together... :wub:

Yes, ESPECIALLY with Come Together...My weakness :shifty:

Alright, back to business...lol

 

[azsummergirl]

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

Could people stop justifying the validity of the Cascio tracks by undermining Michael's singing ability or downplaying Michael's previous works?

So far, I've heard people saying Michael's voice changed. He had problem in hitting certain notes. Gimme a break! He sounded like an angel till his last day on earth.

Or, Invincible is not good at all. The Cascio tracks are better than certain songs on Invincible. Really? Seriously, I mean really?

And now, some lyrics on HIStory are "wretched", really? To me, Scream, D.S. and Little Sussie are brilliant. I don't know who else can write a song about a DA who seek vandetta with such grace.

Thank you. It seems to me that the "believers" continually undermine and ridicule michael's known, real work just to support their belief. as i've said before, i feel like a lot of you are underestimating mj. he's the king for a reason. and i HATE reading about how stuff he's done in the past is "wretched."

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Q : Filmiez-vous vos sessions d'enregistrement?
Were you filming your recording sessions?

F : Non, aucune caméra n'était autorisée. Vous savez, il n'aimait pas être pris en photo et être filmé en studio. Par conséquent, c'était interdit.
No, video cameras were not allowed. You know, he didn't like being photographed or filmed in the studio. As a result, it was not allowed.

Q : Avait-il des demandes de matériels spécifiques pour les enregistrements, comme par exemple des microphones ou des instruments précis　? Avait-il des exigences particulières　?
Did he have special requests in terms of equipment for the recordings, such as microphones or specific intstruments? Did he have any particular demands?

F : Non, il s'en fichait tant que ça sonnait bien. Il aurait pu chanter quelque chose dans son portable et l'enregistrer comme ça, ça ne le gênait pas tant que c'était une bonne mélodie ou un tube en puissance.
No, as long as it sounded good, he didn't care. He could have sung stuff on his cell phone and recorded it as such, it didn't bother him, as long as it was a good melody or a smashing hit.

 

[love is magical]

Did recent Dr. Freeze interview is mentioned here? It's in French and is translated to English automatically by Google (perhaps someone can translate it better)

Q : Filmiez-vous vos sessions d'enregistrement?

F : Non, aucune caméra n'était autorisée. Vous savez, il n'aimait pas être pris en photo et être filmé en studio. Par conséquent, c'était interdit.

Q: Do you Shoot your recording sessions?

F: No, no cameras were allowed. You know, he disliked being photographed and being filmed in the studio. Therefore, it was forbidden.

Q : Avait-il des demandes de matériels spécifiques pour les enregistrements, comme par exemple des microphones ou des instruments précis　? Avait-il des exigences particulières　?

F : Non, il s'en fichait tant que ça sonnait bien. Il aurait pu chanter quelque chose dans son portable et l'enregistrer comme ça, ça ne le gênait pas tant que c'était une bonne mélodie ou un tube en puissance.

Q: Did he have specific hardware demands for records, such as microphones or instruments accurate? Were there any special requirements?

F: No, he did not care as it sounded good. He could sing something in his notebook and save it like that, it did not bother him as it was a good melody or a tube power.

I just finished reading the interview myself. I have a quick question. Is there any translation error in the above bold sentence. Should it be translated to "No, he did not care AS LONG AS it sounded good."

The way it reads now doesn't sound right. :scratch:

Bumper, where are you when we need you?

 

[love is magical]

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

oops... didn't see bumper's post when i clicked the submit button...

 

[ivy]

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

thanks Bumper for the translation. I was wondering what was meant by "tube power"

 

[Arklove]

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

thanks Bumper for the translation. I was wondering what was meant by "tube power"

It's a special tube that makes you sound like Jason Malachi....

kidding...

 

[love is magical]

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

It's a special tube that makes you sound like Jason Malachi....

kidding...

So, it has the PVC pipe effect. Are they selling this kinda tube in Home Depot?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

"Tube" in French is indeed a tube or could be a sort of a pipe. But it also means a hit. A hit "in power", means actually a powerful hit, but of course it is meant "smashing".

 

[Arklove]

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

So, it has the PVC pipe effect. Are they selling this kinda tube in Home Depot?

:hysterical:

 

[love is magical]

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

"Tube" in French is indeed a tube or could be a sort of a pipe. But it also means a hit. A hit "in power", means actually a powerful hit, but of course it is meant "smashing".

:hysterical:

See, I'm actually right. :smilerolleyes:

 

[Arklove]

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

See, I'm actually right. :smilerolleyes:

Actually, no, you're wrong...You can't find this tube at Home Depot, silly....You will find an abundance of them at any fine jewellery store...next to the Casio watches.

 

[samhabib]

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

I can think of one thing that the Cascios can do with that tube.

 

[Arklove]

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

I can think of one thing that the Cascios can do with that tube.

sell more albums?

 

[ivy]

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

At the end of the day, these low quality "guide demos" found their ways to be officially released on a Michael Jackson album as finished songs, while great songs like DYKWYCA and STTR are unofficially leaked.

Many of us felt the album is doing Michael a disservice and are very frustrated about the situation.

Like kopwatcher said, a great opportunity and the potential for something great are wasted. To make matter worse, such controversy casts shadow in all future releases.

Was it worthy? I am asking again the question.

From the time love is magical wrote the above I wanted to tell a story. However it wasn't that important or relevant and would require sometime to type up, therefore I delayed writing it. You'll find it at the second half

First of all to answer the questions of "why these songs made the cut" , we can go with what Branca said that there are only limited number of songs available and in order to satisfy the contract they might have used fillers (not so good songs).

Sure probably we can all agree that "all perfect songs" would be better than a "a mix of good and bad songs" however this might not have happened due to many reasons.

comments such as "such controversy casts shadow in all future releases." and "was it worth it?" actually a logical argument against the conspiracy of faking the vocals. They already knew that Jacksons had some concerns, they knew the vocals will bring controversy with them (RF was writing about it weeks before Breaking News streaming).

Anyway to my story now - as you know I mentioned before that I worked with a pop-rock band in my country. This is our experience with the record companies.

Going back the time before they got a record deal : The band consisted of 5 guys all with ability to play instruments (guitar -guitar - bas guitar - keyboards and drums), 4 out of 5 having considerable amount of experience / education in music (several years of vocal training, classical trained in a music academy, coming from a family of musicians, working as a sound and recording engineer).

One of them was working as a sound and recording engineer at a subsidiary of Universal music and he was able to get the permission to use the studio of the record company when it's not in use. The band recorded their songs all by themselves - with total freedom from the record company. This unfinished product was shown to the executors and resulted in a 5 album record deal. A few professionals were brought in to finish the album. As you can tell it was a very "low cost" production. Similarly the budget for the video(s) was very low , the first video was shot by a unknown director at local bar they performed (during non work hours) with family and friends playing the extras. The album was an instant hit and sold very well. The band was happy, the fans were happy, the record company was happy.

Second album had a little more higher budget - the main difference being record company paying for the professional producer the band wanted. Still the band members with their experiences were recording all the instruments, doing the recording and some mixing mastering by themselves - again with total freedom of doing whatever they wanted to do. Budgets for video and promotion were also increased. Second album was also a success and sold a little better than the first one. The band was happy, the fans were happy, the record company was happy.

As 2 albums did well and showed a consistency the budget for the 3rd album was significantly increased. The company rented a studio for a long period of time for the sole use of the band (allowing them record whenever they felt like it rather than fitting into schedules), similarly every person involved in the production was professionals. As the record company had increased belief towards the band's success they were again given full freedom in their artistic creation. Before the recording the band had went through a lot of personal issues (break ups, divorces, accidents etc) hence they were in a depressed mood - this resulted in a dark, depressed and a more rock album than previous albums. The band planned a 5 video story for the album which was approved by the company and all the videos were to be shot by a well known film director. The album released - it got rave reviews due it's lyrical and musical deepness (12 years later it's release it still is mentioned in any "top albums" lists), the fans were extremely joyous about the album as well but guess what it didn't sell. The sale numbers was 1/3 of the sale numbers of the first 2 albums. So the band was extremely happy (with the album's artistic side and didn't really care about the sale numbers), the fans were extremely happy and the company was not happy at all.

After the second video was released and the sales didn't improve the record company called a meeting with the band. They told that they were stopping the promotion and cancelling future planned 3 videos. Of course the band argued without promotion the sales would not increase but the company maintained that they already had incurred a lot of costs for the album and they didn't believe that regardless what was done it wouldn't improve the sales so they were aiming to minimize their losses (and that meant stopping everything).

Furthermore they told the band the 4th album had to be an "easy listening" that would related to the "masses" and it had to "sell well" or they would not be releasing any more albums and "shelfing the band". (basically meaning they would delay the release of the 5th album that satisfies the contract and hurt their financials, careers etc).

So the 4th album was done with a relatively low budget - firing the professional producer that the band wanted and had during album 2-3, replacing him with a record company appointed producer. The record company dictating and making decisions about what songs to include, which song to be first release etc. The album got released the fans was furious as they thought this was a inferior product that lacked the substance of the previous albums especially the 3rd album. However it did appeal to the masses and the album sold "double" than the band's highest selling album. So the band was unhappy, the fans was furious, the record company was extremely happy.

The band hid their unhappiness (mainly due to their contract) and believe me they were attacked by fans right and left. In every show / interview they did fans would blast the band with questions such as "how could you release such an album? how could you sell out?" etc and the band will lie saying "well this album represent how we feel during the moment and we are in a relaxed and happy state of mind and this album is the product of it" etc.

Needless to say the band wanted out of their contract simply because they had lost their artistic freedom. The record company didn't want them to go as the sales were highest ever and said that they had found the magic formula of "easy listening pop that appeals to masses and bring high sales" they wanted to continue. Luckily the contract allowed for a best of /compilation album to be released as the 5th album. so a best of album packaged with unreleased songs/demos and remixes was released as the last album. The band didn't even wanted to participate to a album cover photo shot or a video. Both were done by montages of old videos/pictures.

After a hiatus the band signed again with another record company - a smaller national one - hoping that this time it will be different. However they went through almost the same events - good sales- bad sales - record company dictated album etc so they left that company too. Now they do not have any record deal, write and produce their own albums on their own dime and just have a distribution deal with a subsidiary of EMI (they'll give the finished album to EMI, EMI will print and distribute the albums to the stores and will get production costs + profit and + share when the CD's get sold).

Now why did I type all this? From my personal experience

- record companies are businesses that wants profits.
- artistically best albums are not necessarily the best selling albums.
- therefore record companies are more interested in "best selling formulas" rather than "musically best" albums.
- record companies are only a friend of the artists as long as they are financially satisfied.
- contracts can put artists into such positions that they do something that they don't necessarily want to do.
- record companies do not necessarily aim to "satisfy the fans", they are much more interested in "reaching the masses".

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

My, my, my, I still have impression that half of my raised points were either ignored or only partially answered. But, that's ok, we're not going to spend an eternity on turning upside down, inside out, round and round.

[youtube]IhvIw7kRCMU[/youtube]

it's "beyond reasonable doubt". nothing in life can be 100%. Even DNA tests are 99.997% - there's always room for error.

Right. To many of us, the error resulting from the auiologists' tests is more convincing than their conclusion.

I'm hitting my head on a wall right now.

We are two.

Again scientific test and law are different. and I'm saying that yes objective scientific tests are more superior than other kinds of evidence (DNA vs eye witness account) yet in a court of law in most cases a single scientific test wouldn't be enough and more the evidence the better.. I don't know how I can explain this if you still don't get it.

I didn't disagree with that. I just said they didn't do this "the more the better". They did just enough to cover their responsibility, but nothing further.

1) first of all there's no actual confirmation that MJ's mother or children said anything - it's all said by Roger Friedman and repeated by TMZ - are we going to say that they are perfectly credible? If the answer to this is yes and you also need to account the fact that both Roger Friedman and TMZ also said that this was due to jealousy and the children were manipulated. so that part of the information must be true as well. I honestly do not understand this "picking out information that suits me and refusing the part that doesn't suit me" logic.

Apparently the Oprah show censured some info regarding that matter.

2) when did I say my personal opinion was solely based on expert reports?

Here for example:

After learning about James Porte, guide vocals, processing went into it and seeing the estate statement (2 forensic experts + opinions of people worked with MJ ) and adding my personal life experiences with music to me it became "MJ with legit supporting/backing vocals". My opinion is a combination of many things. (and honestly I didn't consider Jason's word to be an important factor)

In your statement above your opinion was forged after learning about James Porte. You are absolutely not speaking about what your ears really hear. By your very statements above you give impression that you rather follow scientific analysis and your own music experience added than what your ears hear.

However, we should at no point lose sight of the fact that we are absolutely not questioning the backing vocals, but the leading ones. These latter have always been questioned, never the backing ones. So involving Jamed Porte into debate is irrelevant.

3) as for "he said - she said" argument I also explained why I was personally needed more from Jacksons to believe their statements. Everyone will be subjective in this regard as who they think more credible. It's very similar to you saying "I don't believe Teddy's word". Similarly another person might not be believing to what is being said by any of the Jacksons.

The only reason why, in my case, I --as much as I'd like to-- unfortunately cannot believe Teddy, because my ears are telling me the contrary. I trust my trained ears rather than Teddy's word.

I am not saying that Teddy's ear is not trained and I am not denying or undermining Teddy's work or capacities and the fact that he was hanging around with Michael, I --in this particular case-- just don't believe that Michael is on the Cascio tracks, and therefore cannot take Teddy's word for granted.

4) even in my first post as a reply to your longer post it can easily be seen that I never claimed scientific tests to be perfect (as I acknowledged the error and possibility to fool them). My goal was to explain what is meant by "scientific" testing and how "comparison" videos/audios wouldn't be able to compete with them. Again although scientific objective tests would have more weight in a court of law, it doesn't mean that just having them will be enough.

The lack of perfection is what makes me believe that they got fooled.

We don't know what else they might have done

Test them scientifically as they did with Michael's vocals. It wouldn't hurt.

I did answer you 3 times now. Calling and asking someone is a thing that can easily be done, it would be additional confirmation that can protect you legally. So why not? 100 proof confirming the same thing is better than 10 and 1. So more the better. It's that simple.

We have a mathematical problem here. We can't add pears to apples. Additional to what? To Michael's vocal analysis??? It just doesn't fit.

It would be additional confirmation only and only if they previously had tested Jason's vocals and then, in addition, contacted him.

So if they did it only to protect themselves legally, then it means that they did not bother to prove it was not Michael. In other words, they don't care if it is really Michael or not on those songs, the only thing that apparently counts is to be protected legally to be able to legally sell the tracks.

Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn't. Perhaps it cannot be "reasonably" done without the raw vocals of Jason. This is all speculation.

Speculation? Did you once hear the side by side vocals put by Pentum of "monster" and "let me let go"? The vocal transition between those two songs can hardly be heard.

What is more, so far not a single fan has been able to put side by side a Michael Jackson's song from other albums with the song "Monster" to hear the vocal transition between the two songs! Isn't that suspicious enough? Is that really speculation? Are you saying that ears actually speculate?

And why shouldn't the company get away with it in this scenario as they were themselves were "fooled"? You say that the tests gave a false positive as Jason was able to mimic MJ perfectly and even asked this Jason denied his involvement. The record company is innocent in this scenario.

They are actually doing everything to be innocent, a little to prove that it is Michael and nothing to prove that it is not Jason. Yet, some fans voluntarily without being paid by anyone are able to put side by side Jason's vocals and the vocals from the Cascio songs showing alarming and striking similarities. Yur ears clearly hear that. Denying what one's ears hear is actually lying to oneself.

I don't think I understand this who's getting money from who? If you mean there was a fraud but not by the record company yes they can sue whoever did the fraud.

The buyer realizes too late that he got duped, now he seeks to get back the money covering himself legally and avoiding years of trials and money wasting. So he sells what he bought as much as he can.

who got away? again in your above scenario if the record company is fooled despite their best efforts, it's not their fault. Whoever did the fraud still be legally responsible for the crime.

I did not say it is their fault they got duped. I said it is their fault in selling questionable tracks. Legally covered, they are untouchable.

not unless they have been in a studio with Michael and have relevant experience to offer an educated opinion.

In other words are you saying that the court would absolutely deny and neglect your opinion and your ability to recognize your son's or father's recorded voice in a studio? What kind of justice is that?

in what lawsuit?

It was hypothetically speaking.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

From the time love is magical wrote the above I wanted to tell a story. However it wasn't that important or relevant and would require sometime to type up, therefore I delayed writing it. You'll find it at the second half

First of all to answer the questions of "why these songs made the cut" , we can go with what Branca said that there are only limited number of songs available and in order to satisfy the contract they might have used fillers (not so good songs).

Sure probably we can all agree that "all perfect songs" would be better than a "a mix of good and bad songs" however this might not have happened due to many reasons.

comments such as "such controversy casts shadow in all future releases." and "was it worth it?" actually a logical argument against the conspiracy of faking the vocals. They already knew that Jacksons had some concerns, they knew the vocals will bring controversy with them (RF was writing about it weeks before Breaking News streaming).

Anyway to my story now - as you know I mentioned before that I worked with a pop-rock band in my country. This is our experience with the record companies.

Going back the time before they got a record deal : The band consisted of 5 guys all with ability to play instruments (guitar -guitar - bas guitar - keyboards and drums), 4 out of 5 having considerable amount of experience / education in music (several years of vocal training, classical trained in a music academy, coming from a family of musicians, working as a sound and recording engineer).

One of them was working as a sound and recording engineer at a subsidiary of Universal music and he was able to get the permission to use the studio of the record company when it's not in use. The band recorded their songs all by themselves - with total freedom from the record company. This unfinished product was shown to the executors and resulted in a 5 album record deal. A few professionals were brought in to finish the album. As you can tell it was a very "low cost" production. Similarly the budget for the video(s) was very low , the first video was shot by a unknown director at local bar they performed (during non work hours) with family and friends playing the extras. The album was an instant hit and sold very well. The band was happy, the fans were happy, the record company was happy.

Second album had a little more higher budget - the main difference being record company paying for the professional producer the band wanted. Still the band members with their experiences were recording all the instruments, doing the recording and some mixing mastering by themselves - again with total freedom of doing whatever they wanted to do. Budgets for video and promotion were also increased. Second album was also a success and sold a little better than the first one. The band was happy, the fans were happy, the record company was happy.

As 2 albums did well and showed a consistency the budget for the 3rd album was significantly increased. The company rented a studio for a long period of time for the sole use of the band (allowing them record whenever they felt like it rather than fitting into schedules), similarly every person involved in the production was professionals. As the record company had increased belief towards the band's success they were again given full freedom in their artistic creation. Before the recording the band had went through a lot of personal issues (break ups, divorces, accidents etc) hence they were in a depressed mood - this resulted in a dark, depressed and a more rock album than previous albums. The band planned a 5 video story for the album which was approved by the company and all the videos were to be shot by a well known film director. The album released - it got rave reviews due it's lyrical and musical deepness (12 years later it's release it still is mentioned in any "top albums" lists), the fans were extremely joyous about the album as well but guess what it didn't sell. The sale numbers was 1/3 of the sale numbers of the first 2 albums. So the band was extremely happy (with the album's artistic side and didn't really care about the sale numbers), the fans were extremely happy and the company was not happy at all.

After the second video was released and the sales didn't improve the record company called a meeting with the band. They told that they were stopping the promotion and cancelling future planned 3 videos. Of course the band argued without promotion the sales would not increase but the company maintained that they already had incurred a lot of costs for the album and they didn't believe that regardless what was done it wouldn't improve the sales so they were aiming to minimize their losses (and that meant stopping everything).

Furthermore they told the band the 4th album had to be an "easy listening" that would related to the "masses" and it had to "sell well" or they would not be releasing any more albums and "shelfing the band". (basically meaning they would delay the release of the 5th album that satisfies the contract and hurt their financials, careers etc).

So the 4th album was done with a relatively low budget - firing the professional producer that the band wanted and had during album 2-3, replacing him with a record company appointed producer. The record company dictating and making decisions about what songs to include, which song to be first release etc. The album got released the fans was furious as they thought this was a inferior product that lacked the substance of the previous albums especially the 3rd album. However it did appeal to the masses and the album sold "double" than the band's highest selling album. So the band was unhappy, the fans was furious, the record company was extremely happy.

The band hid their unhappiness (mainly due to their contract) and believe me they were attacked by fans right and left. In every show / interview they did fans would blast the band with questions such as "how could you release such an album? how could you sell out?" etc and the band will lie saying "well this album represent how we feel during the moment and we are in a relaxed and happy state of mind and this album is the product of it" etc.

Needless to say the band wanted out of their contract simply because they had lost their artistic freedom. The record company didn't want them to go as the sales were highest ever and said that they had found the magic formula of "easy listening pop that appeals to masses and bring high sales" they wanted to continue. Luckily the contract allowed for a best of /compilation album to be released as the 5th album. so a best of album packaged with unreleased songs/demos and remixes was released as the last album. The band didn't even wanted to participate to a album cover photo shot or a video. Both were done by montages of old videos/pictures.

After a hiatus the band signed again with another record company - a smaller national one - hoping that this time it will be different. However they went through almost the same events - good sales- bad sales - record company dictated album etc so they left that company too. Now they do not have any record deal, write and produce their own albums on their own dime and just have a distribution deal with a subsidiary of EMI (they'll give the finished album to EMI, EMI will print and distribute the albums to the stores and will get production costs + profit and + share when the CD's get sold).

Now why did I type all this? From my personal experience

- record companies are businesses that wants profits.
- artistically best albums are not necessarily the best selling albums.
- therefore record companies are more interested in "best selling formulas" rather than "musically best" albums.
- record companies are only a friend of the artists as long as they are financially satisfied.
- contracts can put artists into such positions that they do something that they don't necessarily want to do.
- record companies do not necessarily aim to "satisfy the fans", they are much more interested in "reaching the masses".

This is a very interesting story. Thanks for sharing.

I think that we saw similar problems with some other artists such as:

Prince
George Michael
Jimmy Sommerville (I suppose so)
etc.

Now, I am actually eager to know what band are we talking about here?

 

[mjjesamor]

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

You rock bumper! Brilliant post.
Interesting story ivy. Really confirms for me a lot of what i was thinking. Profit first. Artistry second. Well they sure proved that by including the cascio tracks. Suppose they paid millions, they had to at least try to get their money's worth, right? Night all.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

For Maxi CD Singles of All I Need, Keep Your Head Up, Breaking News, Monster and Stay I propose the following covers:

ALL I NEED

KEEP YOUR HEAD UP

BREAKING NEWS

MONSTER

STAY

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

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

Anything can be considered speculation, if it isn't actually proven. Some people hear a major difference in vocals on tracks like Monster and Let Me Let Go, others don't, it all comes down to opinion. Nothing is proven, which means nothing is fact, as far as the argument goes, which makes it speculation.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

Anything can be considered speculation, if it isn't actually proven. Some people hear a major difference in vocals on tracks like Monster and Let Me Let Go, others don't, it all comes down to opinion. Nothing is proven, which means nothing is fact, as far as the argument goes, which makes it speculation.

If that was the case, then we would also be able to hardly make the difference between the vocals on the Cascio tracks and a carefully selected Michael's track. So far, no one has been able to demonstrate it, contrary to the Jason's tracks.

So, it is more of speculation to consider the Cascio tracks MJ's than Jasons'

 

[ivy]

My, my, my, I still have impression that half of my raised points were either ignored or only partially answered. But, that's ok, we're not going to spend an eternity on turning upside down, inside down, round and round.

I answered them all. I really do not know how to answer them in any other way.

Apparently the Oprah show censured some info regarding that matter.

nope. I already made a detailed post about that before. will copy below

It was an officially sanctioned promotional press paragraph sent out from Oprah and her team to promote the broadcast. Do you think they would just make it up? The paragraph makes it pretty clear.

No it wasn't an official promotional paragraph, it is just a story Yahoo Music wrote (using TMZ etc).

This is the official news release reported by AP from ABC webite dated Nov 2nd

ABC website link : http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=12026845

"CHICAGO — Katherine Jackson will discuss the death of her son, pop superstar Michael Jackson, in an interview with Oprah Winfrey.

Harpo Productions said today that Winfrey’s interview with Jackson’s mother will air Nov. 8 on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Jackson’s father, Joe Jackson, and his three children, Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson, also will appear during a backyard visit taped for the episode.

Winfrey and Katherine Jackson filmed the interview at the family’s home in Encino, Calif. The Chicago-based production company says Katherine Jackson talks about the day her son died and reflects on his life as a childhood star.

Michael Jackson died unexpectedly in June 2009. He gave a famous interview to Winfrey in 1993 in which he first disclosed suffering from the skin condition vitiligo."

Furthermore let's compare

TMZ on Nov 3rd

As we have been reporting, Sony will be releasing a Michael Jackson album before Christmas, featuring 10 - 12 original tracks. We're told 5 of the tracks were recorded at the New Jersey home of record producer Eddie Cascio.

Yahoo Music on Nov 5th

Three to five of the 10-12 tracks on Michael, out December 14 on Sony, were allegedly recorded at the New Jersey home of producer Eddie Cascio in 2007,

TMZ Nov 3rd

Michael and his kids stayed at Cascio's family home for 4 months in 2007, when the tracks were recorded, along with remixes that were released on the Thriller 25 Album.

Yahoo Music Nov 5th

when Michael and his children stayed there for four months working on remixes for the 25th-anniversary reissue of Thriller.

TMZ Nov 3rd

"We're told Prince says he was upstairs at the Cascio's house when many of the tracks were recorded and was able to hear the music, and none of what he heard matches the Sony tracks. "

this is what Yahoo music writes 2 days later on Nov 5th

Michael's son, Prince Michael, said this week that none of what he heard recorded then matches what he hears now on Michael,

(almost exact wording of TMZ article)

TMZ Nov 3rd

The Jackson family believes the Cassio tracks in question were fakes -- sung by a Michael Jackson sound-alike

Yahoo Music Nov 5th

and that he believes the Cascio cuts were recorded posthumously by a Michael soundalike.

TMZ Nov 3rd

We're also told Paris is "adamant" -- she does not believe her dad's voice is on the tracks in question.

Yahoo Nov 5th

Prince's sister, Paris, corroborated these claims--as did Michael's mother, Katherine, during an Oprah interview.

As you can see Yahoo basically copied the story from TMZ (reworded it so it wouldn't be plagiarism) just adding "Oprah" into the mix.

edited to add: Oprah interview was done on October 9th. The "questionable vocals" information on media didn't start until October 19 (Roger Friedman) and RF didn't reveal until October 29th that 3T (and some Jackson's) were the ones that was against the songs. So Oprah would not be knowledgeable about this issue on October 9th. so the "vocals" wouldn't be a question that Oprah brings up.

By all accounts the discussion between the parties involved about these songs and whether to include them or not went till sometime into November. even 3T didn't start their public twitter posts about the vocals till Breaking News Streaming (Nov 7th). Plus both Taj and Randy said that they weren't present during the Oprah interview.

So why would Katherine make a comment about the songs that might or might not be included on the album (as of October 9th) to Oprah?

In your statement above your opinion was forged after learning about James Porte. You are absolutely not speaking about what your ears really hear. By your very statements above you give impression that you rather follow scientific analysis and your own music experience added than what your ears hear.

did you read the part that I said before everything I heard part Michael part not Michael? To me it was always a case of legit or not legit additional vocals issue. I later concluded that it was legit supporting vocals.

The only reason why, in my case, I --as much as I'd like to-- unfortunately cannot believe Teddy, because my ears are telling me the contrary. I trust my trained ears rather than Teddy's word.

Which is completely fine and like I said similarly other people can have their concerns about what the Jacksons or other parties said.

The lack of perfection is what makes me believe that they got fooled.

as I said it's a possibility.

We have a mathematical problem here. We can't add pears to apples. Additional to what? To Michael's vocal analysis??? It just doesn't fit.

I tried to explain this many times. and honestly I do not think that I can express this any better than I already did. My take is that you are mixing up what you think should be done with what is needed to satisfy the legal requirement. It's useless to continue this topic any further. Let's agree to disagree.

Speculation? Did you once heard the side by side vocals put by Pentum of "monster" and "let me let go"? The vocal transition between those two songs can hardly be heard.

I heard some (probably not all). and I said before when I listen to Jason YES there are times he sounds convincing as Michael but to me majority of the time he doesn't sound like Michael. Therefore partial fits aren't that impressive for me.

What is more, so far not a single fan has been able to put side by side a Michael Jackson's song from other albums with the song "Monster" to hear the vocal transition between the two songs! Isn't that suspicious enough? Is that really speculation?

do we have any comparative guide/demo vocals with low quality and heavily processed? no. so no fan would be able to do what you are saying.

I did not say it is their fault they got duped. I said it is their fault in selling questionable tracks. Legally covered, they are untouchable.

again why put fault on the record company? (and you now know that I'm not a big fan or supporter of record companies) In your scenario they were duped and they are selling an album that they in good faith and due diligence effort believe to be authentic. They can be sued but wouldn't be found guilty.

In other words are you saying that the court would absolutely deny and neglect your opinion and your ability to recognize your son's or father's recorded voice in a studio? What kind of justice is that?

I didn't say "absolutely", did I? For example as 3T and J5 had been in the studio with Michael their opinions would matter. Same goes for the producers mentioned in the statement. In a "he said -she said" situation it would all come to credibility and level of experience/ knowledge about the subject. It would be something the best man will win.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

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

did you read the part that I said before everything I heard part Michael part not Michael? To me it was always a case of legit or not legit additional vocals issue. I later concluded that it was legit supporting vocals.

Ok, on some points we do agree, on some points we do disagree. You hear Michael, I don't and it is indeed useless to continue endless arguments.

I think that we both find in a reasonable way that there is enough evidence for you to believe it is Michael, and enough evidence for me that it is not Michael on those tracks.

Set aside any objective evidence, I however am extremely surprised to read that your ears actually hear Michael in songs so much more similar to Jason's "Let me let go" than to any other Michael's song. But, hey, that's life.

So, yes, let's agree to disagree.

I heard some (probably not all). and I said before when I listen to Jason YES there are times he sounds convincing as Michael but to me majority of the time he doesn't sound like Michael. Therefore partial fits aren't that impressive for me.

The double issue here is that firstly nobody says that Jason sounds all the time convincing as Michael. Only on some of his songs or some parts of his songs. Secondly, the Cascio songs sound more like Jason on some of his songs than on any Michael's song at all.

I think that earlier I was begging you to listen to "Stay" and tell your impressions. I don't remember having read your impressions about that songs.

Anyway, I am begging you now to carefully listen to these audio comparisons, especially the song "Monster":

http://fakemichael.com/

do we have any comparative guide/demo vocals with low quality and heavily processed? no. so no fan would be able to do what you are saying.

A basic amateur-made comparison would suffice for our ears just the way it was done on the site I provided above. Why no one makes such a comparison with any of Michael's songs and says "listen, here you can clearly hear that Michael's voice and the voice on the Cascio are exactly the same"?

again why put fault on the record company? (and you now know that I'm not a big fan or supporter of record companies) In your scenario they were duped and they are selling an album that they in good faith and due diligence effort believe to be authentic. They can be sued but wouldn't be found guilty.

They bought it in good faith and they sell it in good faith. What about some ethics here? Only because you bought it in good faith and afterwards you realize the product might be fake, does this give you the right to sell the product in good faith anyway under the pretext that they are legally covered?