Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
and that's not answering my questions.. thank you..
and I don't have to dig out anything.. hearing is subjective.. you can hear something , I can hear something else.. you can be wrong, I can be wrong.. this is not a war.. we aren't enemies.. peace out.
and I don't have to dig out anything.. hearing is subjective.. you can hear something , I can hear something else.. you can be wrong, I can be wrong.. this is not a war.. we aren't enemies.. peace out.
azsummergirl
Proud Member
oh my god . . . thank you. this was exactly what i was trying to get at. it seems i wasn't doing a very good job of "making it clearer to understand"
Calisto
Proud Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2011
- Messages
- 277
- Points
- 18
Ivy,
I said I agreed with Kapital's post in general (which doesn't mean exactly), and that I would be surprised if Frank didn't have a hand in any of this (which does't mean I think it's an outright impossibility).
There was never a claim of certainty on my part. I never stated it was a fact that Frank DiLeo committed fraud. And I never directly encouraged anyone to partake in a smear campaign based in fantasy. I spoke only for myself, and explained why I felt the way I did (which I stand by) once you showed objection.
Then why is this thread still open? There's allegations and accusations being thrown around everywhere, yet for some reason you're singling me out.
I said I agreed with Kapital's post in general (which doesn't mean exactly), and that I would be surprised if Frank didn't have a hand in any of this (which does't mean I think it's an outright impossibility).
There was never a claim of certainty on my part. I never stated it was a fact that Frank DiLeo committed fraud. And I never directly encouraged anyone to partake in a smear campaign based in fantasy. I spoke only for myself, and explained why I felt the way I did (which I stand by) once you showed objection.
ivy said:
Then why is this thread still open? There's allegations and accusations being thrown around everywhere, yet for some reason you're singling me out.
Last edited:
MusicMan26
Guests
You make it sound like the doubters are a bunch of crazy people.ivy;3551555 said:
I'm not saying they are a bunch of crazy people. I'm just saying that a line has been crossed.
For example do you think cursing Frank, Teddy Riley on twitter is acceptable ?
Do you think putting the head of Malachi on a body of a goat is nice?
Do you think it's decent to accuse people when you have no proof?
Now imagine that you were at the receiving end of this and other people was doing these to you. How would you feel?
None of the above are investigating, discussing or uncovering anything. It's not productive. It just shows you that people lost their way and cannot even see it. It's actually very sad.
For example do you think cursing Frank, Teddy Riley on twitter is acceptable ?
Do you think putting the head of Malachi on a body of a goat is nice?
Do you think it's decent to accuse people when you have no proof?
Now imagine that you were at the receiving end of this and other people was doing these to you. How would you feel?
None of the above are investigating, discussing or uncovering anything. It's not productive. It just shows you that people lost their way and cannot even see it. It's actually very sad.
teli-mj
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 625
- Points
- 0
^^ You are right of course. Some peoples reaction was very harsh because they thought, and still do, that what Sony or the estate or both did to their idol just a year after his death and after many years of him being manipulated, used and betrayed by people for money, was totally disgusting. They just saw the man that they admire being used and abused even after his death so things, normaly, got out of control The thing is though that if someone of those participating in the making of the "Michael" album had given the fans any proof that Mike is the one singing on those songs, then the reactions wouldn't have been as harsh. Did they give any proof that it is Mike singing on those songs?
On the other hand though i'm glad that fans reacted the way they did because apparently those who worked on the cd didn't have Mike and his legacy in much consideration. I'm glad that the fans showed them, even in a very extreme way, that there are people who care about him and his legacy out there and that those people would not permit them to play with it or abuse it in order to make money. Because that is what the estate and Sony did with that cd. And also i'm glad because fans send a clear message to those involved to projects conserning MJ: we will not buy whatever has the name Michael on it. When we buy something concering Mike, we expect it to be Mike and we expect from them to show the higher respect or attention on it. That is what Michael as an artist diserves. The "Michael" album is not what Michael as an artist diserved.
On the other hand though i'm glad that fans reacted the way they did because apparently those who worked on the cd didn't have Mike and his legacy in much consideration. I'm glad that the fans showed them, even in a very extreme way, that there are people who care about him and his legacy out there and that those people would not permit them to play with it or abuse it in order to make money. Because that is what the estate and Sony did with that cd. And also i'm glad because fans send a clear message to those involved to projects conserning MJ: we will not buy whatever has the name Michael on it. When we buy something concering Mike, we expect it to be Mike and we expect from them to show the higher respect or attention on it. That is what Michael as an artist diserves. The "Michael" album is not what Michael as an artist diserved.
MusicMan26
Guests
I agree - I don't think that is acceptable or decent. However, that isn't all of the doubters. And I don't really think the head on the goat was that bad...I took it as something that was meant to be humorous. And stuff like that is fairly tame considering how some of us feel about the situation. We can probably all agree that all we want are answers one way or another and I agree that we should be productive.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
You didn't answer my questions that I asked first:
1) How many songs have you heard to defend your opinion?
2) Regarding subjectivity, less you hear, indeed more subjective you are. So if you base your opinion on 3 heard tracks and I on 12 heard tracks, we don't have the same criteria. Now, let's not exaggerate, if hearing is that subjective as you say it is, we'd have a controversy over every single thing we hear. How many tracks have you heard to defend your opinion against people who heard 12 tracks? In all logic don't you agree that hearing more tracks from the same singer helps to get more familiar with his voice?
3) Name Jason Malachi's attorneys, representatives and managers who took the initiative to make a clear statement to clear things up on behalf of Jason Malachi, other than the manager who was simply contacted by the Estate and asked if Jason was involved to which he obviously simply answered "no" without any other expected statement with more info as it would be normal in this kind of situation.
eXceLOfFam1
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 247
- Points
- 18
dam2040
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Messages
- 6,406
- Points
- 113
mike weren't scared, he knew what was out there. he just went around with cautions at times. yeah, it comes with being the biggest entertainer of all time.
the discussion is about Jason why didn't he himself answer questions. If you ask relevant questions to the discussion I'll answer.
reaching.. why would more than one representative would answer? - not realistic. For example estate has an online team that consists of multiple people, multiple attorneys, office staff and so on. when they send an information to us it comes from ONE person, you don't get the same thing from multiple people. Even at 2007 as Jason said "his attorney - 1 single person" had talked to TMZ. Today "his manager - one single person" talks to the media. And you have no idea about what he might have said to the Estate. Go to his blog he clearly said he talked to the Estate twice- you don't need to talk twice to just say "no". It's obvious that the talks were more detailed than that.
and I'm curious - how many reps do you think Jason has? He's a sheriff from Maryland who happens to record some songs and banking on his ability to sound similar to Michael. He's not famous. He's not successful. He's not a professional musician.
and seriously bumper you used to be logical what happened to you? how do you come up with these unrealistic expectations and skewed assumptions?
did Michael Jackson personally address all the questions / controversy making youtube videos? Did Michael Jackson even gave interviews about everything / anytime? Didn't we most of the time just received statements from his "spokesperson" or nothing at all?
I'm pretty sure if some paps were following Jason we would have seen him going to his work and not "literally" hiding. But his silence about this issue is also explainable how Michael kept silent about some stuff, if you want to compare him to Michael.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
The questions are extremely relevant. How can you defend your opinion regarding a voice on the Cascio tracks without hearing the voice on the maximum tracks there are? What kind of logic is that? Hearing the less tracks possible and voicing the opinion on the same level as those who have heard the maximum, and then tell them that they are as subjective as you are?
I am sorry, but you started talking about representatives/attorneys/managers making it sound as if Jason had a whole team denying the thing, when in reality we do not have single official statement coming from his camp at all, other than what the Estate reported-- a timid answer by Jason's manager to their question, which completely contradicts Jason's previous behavior of "clearing things up".
Now I provided Jason's official and direct words when he was clearing things up back in 2007.
What can you offer as official and direct words from Jason's camp? Talking about being logical...
Last edited:
eXceLOfFam1
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 247
- Points
- 18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYkIOWqbw8s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLpABElGXb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOmE-4IO8SY&feature=related
also the bashir documentary was all about addressing controversy through letting the world see michael jackson with his guard down, so yes he did take the time to address controversies when it counted. their silence is not comparable, Jason Malachi being silent in this situation is like MJ being silent in 93 or 05, he knew he didnt do it, so he said something about it, JM not saying anything makes it more believable that he has something to hide.
Grent
Guests
That shows that for some it's not about what it sounds like, but what is probable, logical and imaginable.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
The first three lines of Fall In Love are all anyone needs to hear.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well engaging in a debate about a voice and refusing at all costs to hear the very same voice on other tracks can't help you make an opinion, hence it is extremely subjective. But claiming the same level of subjectivity as someone who heard the double can't stand as a logical and credible argument at all, especially if the person tells you that you, who have heard all the tracks, tells you that you aren't logical. What kind of twisted logic is that?
p.s. Not to mention that apparently it is irrelevant to hear the voice on those tracks in order to debate its authenticity.
Last edited:
you have no idea what I heard or didn't hear - you are as always making an assumption. I don't plan to discuss what I heard or didn't hear and I can opt for a "no" answer just to avoid discussing it. You'll have to live with that.
please read better. I said through our communications with many people we used middle man such as representatives, attorneys, managers and publishers. I never said Jason had this many people. All I said was communicating through a rep is normal.
And we have official statement coming from his camp. I talked to his manager in detail and then asked him to give me something "on the record". That's an official statement coming from Jason's camp. (And as I said he did the same with TMZ and another fan club). The statement included in the Estate statement is also official. I'm pretty sure that they aren't operating on "bumper's standards". So you are left with two choices - either accept it or continue complaining.
do you really think this issue is as serious as the molestation accusations?
Reality check - Jackson's tweeted for a week or so, media wrote about this for a week or so. there are no lawsuits. no one is discussing this but a small group of people.
did he do that because he made an assumption? or was it because sony refused his idea for a video? was it because sony cut down the promotion? was it because he heard how tommy mottola called another black artist?
tell me was his actions based on assumptions/theories or were they backed up with indisputable facts?
Kapital77
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 772
- Points
- 18
ivy;3551913 said:
Theories are not what MJ family said, what Corey Rooney said, what Tony Curtis said, and what McClain thought about the tracks.
I only know that he took those photoshopped pictures and rised up to the air.
You said this:
I tell you this:
He had his reasons, we have our reasons.
That´s why this controversial thread exists and that´s the reason why many fans AROUND THE WORLD fought like he did.
And those fans believe in those audio comparisons, believe in Jacksons Family and believe in John McClain.
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well, if you on the one hand publicly claim you refuse to hear the tracks, and on the other you say "you have no idea what I heard", and then you are accusing me of making assumptions, I really don't know what to believe you any more. The discussion is sterile and your arguments inconsistant (heard? or not heard?). Make up your mind so we can base our discussion on transparency of who heard what.
Yes, I read it very well. But what I said is that you are making it sound as if it is normal and as if Jason's camp denied it for Jason big time. Now all I am saying, is where is that statement officially communicated from Jason's camp as it was done back in 2007?
Oh, because he talked to Ivy, it makes it official? But insignificant "bumper's standards" are ridiculous and little bumper has to accept it or continue complaining? Lol. How modest of you. You know, I am not asking anything, I can hear the voice. But if there is an official statement to be done, I doubt it it would be done through a member of this board. Now where is that official and direct report and where is Jason? Hiding in the bushes from the paparazzi?
read between the lines. or do you need me to spell it out for you?
again you aren't reading it properly. His manager talked to the Estate - which is included on Estate statement. He talked to TMZ - which is published on TMZ. He talked to me and allowed me to publish it here and he did the same with another fan club. You have 4 official and public statements coming from Jason's camp.
Yet you personally aren't satisfied, don't see them official and so on. So yes you have 2 choices - either accept that this is how they responded to this situation or continue to complain.
Chamife
Proud Member
Member Service
Staff
I think we all seem to missing one huge point here,
You have absolutely no evidence to support the fact you all think this is indeed Malachi singing,
And yes on the other side there is absolutely no evidence to which we have that supports it is in fact Michael singing.
Like it or not everything in here is a theory a personal opinion,
Until I have on my desk that evidence I/we/MJJC will not take one bit of what anyone says with any ounce of credit.
And yes I find it deplorable the effects this never ending (over 12 months now with little gained) has had on a community I have spent ten years creating,
All based on what - A Personal opinion a personal belief with no factual evidence to support.
You have absolutely no evidence to support the fact you all think this is indeed Malachi singing,
And yes on the other side there is absolutely no evidence to which we have that supports it is in fact Michael singing.
Like it or not everything in here is a theory a personal opinion,
Until I have on my desk that evidence I/we/MJJC will not take one bit of what anyone says with any ounce of credit.
And yes I find it deplorable the effects this never ending (over 12 months now with little gained) has had on a community I have spent ten years creating,
All based on what - A Personal opinion a personal belief with no factual evidence to support.
Grent
Guests
ivy said:
Easy choice. This is what we ought to do.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
No, I don't rely on reading between the lines, because that way you can say whatever you want and accuse people of making assumptions. If people are being honest saying what they have heard, then you can be too.
I am reading it properly, but you refuse to see my point.
Jason's camp did not come forward to say anything. They were asked by the Estate and that's it. They were asked by others, and again, of course they denied any involvement. Who on Earth would say "Yes we participated in making those songs on an official Michael Jackson album"? Let's have some common sense. Even if they did it, they would never admit it.
My point was not that at all. My point was Jason's behavior. When there was a doubt he himself, voluntarily without any need actually came forward to clear things up.
On the contrary, today, you practically need to bomb Jason with questions, and all you get are timid answers. There are no official direct reports other than what you mentioned. The behavior is clearly different from 2007. it is not an assumption, it is an observation.
I am not complaining at all actually. I am even not looking forward to any kind of statement from Jason's camp. I heard the voice and to me it is clear, they will never admit it is him, because it is not in their interest. I am just putting forward an observation with facts:
-Jason did appear to deny when he felt being wrongfully accused in 2007, and was all over the net with plenty of projects and albums to come apparently.
-Jason disappeared from the surface of this earth from the moment "Michael" got released. Scared? Maybe, but then it's up to him to come forward and reassure people it's not him. Has he done it yet? Not the way he did it in 2007. Pure observation. Well then, he can hide for the rest of his life.
Same falsetto, same timbre, same snorts, same yelps, same pronunciation, same melody humming, same song structures, same whining, the list goes on and on and on and on, it goes on and on and on (I'm just a runner up).
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
As far as I am concerned, I've always supported this board and even the one that was before this one (I forgot the name, was it MJNI? or something like that?). I don't think this board should be questioned for the Cascio tracks as it has nothing to do with them. And it is a good thing we can discuss them here. So the 12 months spent on opinions about the tracks isn't necessarily a negative thing. On the contrary, it shows at what extent the Estate's choice of recognizing those tracks as Michael's was a bit hasty.
Even if we close this thread, those tracks won't remain unforgotten necessarily, especially if in the future they release the remaining tracks on MJ's official albums.
Can we really deny that the voice on those tracks is off compared to all MJ songs we've heard in the past decades? Mission impossible.