Michael - The Great Album Debate

[ivy]

As I'm gathering data for my video I just found out a very small but interesting little thing. This is a bit conspiracy like stuff, so believers: please don't bother.

Monster has insanely fast vibrato speeds. We know the released version is about 6% faster than the demo. But slowing it down from 106 to 100% doesn't quite cut it. Still faster vibrato than on any other Cascio track. So I decided to slow it even further, from 117,5 to 100% (meaning, I assume the released Monster is 17,5% faster than the original concept). This way, we have pretty much the same fast vibrato speeds as on every other Cascio track. But the new Monster's tempo is exactly the same as ......... Privacy.


Note: Value could easily also be 17 or 16.5%, and then the suspected original Monster speed would be slightly faster than Privacy. That's not the point. The point is, Privacy is a pretty slow song. That's the reason I personally don't like it. Monster, also telling a story about paparazzi, could have been designed based on its predecessor's tempo.


So according to the vibrato speed found on Monster, it was probably supposed to be a slow song like Privacy.

Okay I'm a little confused. Even if it's that slow why would it be a "conspiracy"?

Edited to add

Grent have you ever compared Jason's live performances to released songs? Do they have a difference on the basis of vibrato and sounding like Michael?

 

[Grent]

Okay I'm a little confused. Even if it's that slow why would it be a "conspiracy"?

What I meant was "conspiracy theory".
Fact is, Monster is sped up. Fact is, Monster's vibratos are about 17% faster than BN's and KYHU's (except for the "tooo baaad" background).
But the direct link between 17.5% and Privacy ... that's what I'd call "conspiracy theory stuff". Makes sense though.

 

[ivy]

I still don't get it

I added a question to the above post

 

[Grent]

I still don't get it

Ok, simply replace "conspiracy theory stuff" with "far-fetched".

Grent have you ever compared Jason's live performances to released songs? Do they have a difference on the basis of vibrato and sounding like Michael?

I'm on it. But quality sucks most of the time. That Don't walk away live video on youtube though: slightly slower vibrato than Room 2 Breathe. But very little. Regarding sounding like Michael, at the moment I care about vibrato only.

But he seems to be quite a lot worse live generally.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I know it sometimes angered some of you when I asked "was this your own opinion" question. I was just wondering the effect of leading. I mean I wrote before that probably Pentum is the most knowledgeable about Jason's voice and he comes to an opinion on his own but how about other people? Can they come to that opinion on their own or start hearing what Pentum told them?

As far as I am concerned, here was my initial reaction regarding the voice on those tracks:

-Breaking News: Immediate reaction - not Michael Jackson (not Jason Malachi either, until I heard towards the end of the song the grit sounding exactly like Jason Malachi "breaking the news")
-Keep your head up: Immediate reaction - sounds like Michael Jackson, until I paid attention to vibrato and falsetto, which was a big give away and was sounding exactly like Jason Malachi (I already explained that I am not as accute when hearing a slow song as hearing a fast song)
-Monster: Immediate reaction - Jason Malachi from the start till the end, and especially with parts "too bad" and the way he pronounces "stalking".

All these were my immediate reaction without talking to absolutely anyone. So I wouldn't say I was influenced by anyone. On the contrary, I was actually surprised to see so many people witnessing to hear exactly the same things I heard.

@Bumper - I'm curious I didn't see you post, were you able to listen to what Pentum posted and determine accent, pronunciation?

I also come and go, because I am quite busy, so I didn't have the opportunity to hear Pentum's file. However, without hearing the file, I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that when an imitator tries his best, he'd also try his best in imitating the accent and the pronunciation. So it wouldn't be surprising to see people being fooled. But there is always a little something that will be detected that doesn't match with the original. Take for example a foreigner who is gifted in learning new languages and is perfectly able to imitate different accents, but at one point although his/her pronunciation is close to perfect there'll be always at least one word that will betray him/her which would indicate that the person is imitating.

If you erase those little give-aways and replace them by the genuine voice pronouncing the words that have been mispronounced by the imitator, then there is a big chance that the listener will be easily fooled.

I think the most important thing to learn from is to realize that voice identification is not that easy, we can be mistaken and there's no sense in seeing a fellow fan as the enemy just because they can't hear what you hear. It also shows us that this controversy is probably will go on for a long time and perhaps never end due to the nature of it.

Voice identification can pose problems indeed, but there are some other indicators than just the voice itself, which shouldn't be neglected. We should consider that every MJ's previous song is a reference. So, which among all thoses references from the past can we compare to the Cascio songs so that we can be able to assess the voice? If not a single song from the past is comparable in terms of singing, then we should raise a red flag.

 

[ivy]

I'm on it. But quality sucks most of the time. That Don't walk away live video on youtube though: slightly slower vibrato than Room 2 Breathe. But very little. Regarding sounding like Michael, at the moment I care about vibrato only.

But he seems to be quite a lot worse live generally.

exactly and let me tell you what I'm curious about and you can give me your opinion about it.

sorry I will not be able to technical and I hope you can understand what I mean.

when I listen to Jason's live performances he mostly sounds nothing like Michael (like a word here and there would sound similar but not majority) but the released songs will be a lot more convincing. (The other day bumper had posted a video of Jason singing in his house - ugh I forgot the name of the song- and I had tried to ask this question). So I'm kinda curious about how much of him sounding like Michael is his own ability and how much of it is "studio magic". Does it make sense?

 

[Grent]

So I'm kinda curious about how much of him sounding like Michael is his own ability and how much of it is "studio magic". Does it make sense?

As we rarely listen to MJ in bad quality, I'd say, also MJ sounds less like MJ on a weak setting.

As for "studio magic" ... well, it's mostly about the takes. He does dozens of them, I suppose. Just like me. If you aren't that good of a singer, you do it a 1000 times and put it all together from different takes. That's a real PITA and you wish you'd just be able to deliver properly.
This for sure is a huge part. Live there's just one take, and - especially at All that you need you have in you - he f*cks up big time. Sounds horrible at the beginning.

Another thing is the sound itself through a microphone in a silent room versus through a mobile phone piezo microphone. All the frequencies you catch.

Then you can put a nice sounding reverb and a slight delay on the voice. That blurrs everything in a minor way (many fakes use extensive reverb to mask the fake) and at the same time adds a professional touch to the voice.

Then of course the vocal arrangements thrown in every now and then. Those resemble MJs work. He can't do that live, neither the background singers.

But as for special effects to actively resemble MJ, I don't think he does that. And I don't know what he could do about that. If you're a true audiophile, you could take the same equipment as MJ regarding mics, pre-amps, compressors. But hardly anyone in the world would hear that on your vocal. Let alone find a technical resemblance, when you clearly hear that it's not the same person.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Did anyone hear or see the video that some people are saying leaked of Michael recording Keep Your Head Up ?

My friends are telling me it was on YouTube is that true ???

 

[Grent]

That's an impersonator. That was posted at maxjax a few months ago.
And guess what: it sounds more like Michael Jackson, than what is on the album.

Oh, you mean video? I meant audio.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

That's an impersonator. That was posted at maxjax a few months ago.
And guess what: it sounds more like Michael Jackson, than what is on the album.

Oh, you mean video? I meant audio.

Supposedly it's a video.

Did anyone else hear or see this ?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Supposedly it's a video.

Did anyone else hear or see this ?

There was never any video, any picture, any worktape, any outtake related to any of the Cascio songs. How do I know? Common sense. When you go on Oprah and speak about Michael Jackson working in the studio with you, you don't show a picture of an empty studio. You do what Barry Gibb did (who didn't even go on Oprah), you show the footage.

p.s. Showing a footage or any kind of trace Michael recording those tracks would have spared them hell of a time. But I guess they prefer wasting their time in taking down youtube, soundcloud etc. audio files.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

Yea, if they have video, why waste their time...unless they want to get the wrod out that a new album is coming

 

[Chamife]

Michael was more than just a voice in a snippet of 0.36 seconds. I don't think he would put much value in us recognizing his voice in a fabricated/frankenstein snippet (no offense to you Pentum). He'd want us to feel and enjoy his songs, his artwork.

I'm not sure whether I get your point Chamife. The snippet Pentum posted was not 'frankensteined' in the sense that it was not full of copy/pasted and pitch-corrected vocals of Michael mixed with an impersonator. Most of it (if not all of it) is just Jean Walker doing his MJ impersonation.

You speak Dutch bow:) What a surprise, hahaha!! Might come in handy for me if I don't know how to say it in English.

Because of the bad quality (blurry lyrics, no clear pronouncation) I had absolutely no idea what that snippet was. In hindsight I shouldn't be that naive, lol. I thought it could be Michael, because his voice sounds exactly the same at some points to me. Is that strange? No, people can imitate. My voice has the same characteristics as my mother's. Many people say my voice sounds the same at times, and it does, but I'm not her. When my 3 daughters sing together, the harmony of their voices is beautiful . They match perfectly, so maybe the voice has something to do with inheritance/genetics also. Or it could be because they heard my voice from when they were little and it is some form of imitating/copying after all. So Pentum's snippet proves that some people have (almost) the same voice, but that's nothing new. That's why I said that Michael was more than just a voice. I just listened to Jean Walkers song/teste (what exactly is this and what does it consist of?) and indeed, Pentum didn't change much. To me that part is really beautiful, regardless of who sings it. Really love the melody or chord string progression or how do you call it.

As for Michael not putting value in people recognizing his voice in this snippet; the reason Pentum did this was to show that apparently quite a lot of people have difficulties distinguishing Michael's vocals from those of an impersonator, both 'doubters' and 'believers'. Personally I think MJ might not have cared about people being mistaken with a snippet sung by an impersonator that confused people for a while and then ended up being credited to that impersonator (as is the case now). I can imagine him even getting a bit of a kick out of it: after all, he also seemed to enjoy watching people dress and dance like him. But we are dealing with the unbelievable situation that tracks sung by an impersonator (imo) have ended up on one of his official albums and are now part of his official legacy. Do I think he would be offended by that? Knowing how much his work meant to him, I can only say hell yes. Like you said: Michael would want us to feel and enjoy his amazing work, not that of an inferior copycat.


I guess my main point is that in the past, when Michael was still with us, it would not have mattered if people mistook an impersonator's vocals for Michael's. Although it might have sparked some heated debates ("how can you fall for this?" "this is MJ, can't you tell? Love it Michael!") as it did in 2007 when Jason Malachi first gained notoriety, everybody would figure out, in the end, that they were not really Michael. People would laugh about being mistaken and perhaps give props to the impersonator for fooling them. But the Cascio track debacle and the fact that Michael is no longer with us to settle the issue once and for all, has suddenly made it important that people can distinguish his voice from that of an impersonator. No matter what side of the fence you are on with regards to the Cascio tracks, it is a really crappy situation for all of us...

I totally agree with your post, but I'm afraid people will never be able to distinguish his voice IMO, see for reasons above. Cascio tracks also prove that. Fuelly sung tracks (not snippets) with a voice that doesn't come close to Jean Walker's sound. So we have to distinguish Michael by other things and focus on these other characteristics. And whilst typing this I already feel disheartened about that. If we don't already know these characteristics by all Michael left us, we never will. A lot of fans do, but also a lot don't, unfortunately. I quoted some parts of posts ( from SJR and Bumper) that explain what I mean.

Of course, I say this as someone who does not believe Michael is singing on the Cascio songs and I do not mean to offend or rile up anybody who thinks the tracks are sung by Michael (or anyone who thought Pentum's snippet was really Michael for that matter!). If the Cascio songs are one day proven to be the real deal, as impossible and unlikely as that seems to me, then I would feel bad for thinking it was Jason Malachi instead of Michael.

Yes, I would too towards Jason Malachi. Of wrongly accusing him of being a part of this. Not towards myself, because they made Michael totally unrecognizable in these songs. And I would have serious questions about the motives as to why Michael recorded these. It's hard for me to believe he wrote them with the intent of maybe releasing them one day as his work.

But only...IF.

Some people may have MJ's tone. But no one, NO One, has his combination of impeccable dynamics, story-telling ability in songs, and soul (ie shifting the speed of his vibrato to match the song (See 4:05-4:20), and emotional range from being able to scream at you at the top of his lungs to putting you in a relaxed trance with his ballad voice, all within a minute's time frame (ie Will you be there, YANA, IJCSLY, etc).

And when it's MJ you hear, you'll just know. You'll get that feeling when you hear the tracks of his you know and love. Of course, I could be wrong. But I strongly doubt it.[/I]

Exactly, tracks. We need fully sung tracks to detect Michael (hear his characterics and feel his SOUL) and even then: Some will know and others won't.

I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that when an imitator tries his best, he'd also try his best in imitating the accent and the pronunciation. So it wouldn't be surprising to see people being fooled. But there is always a little something that will be detected that doesn't match with the original. Take for example a foreigner who is gifted in learning new languages and is perfectly able to imitate different accents, but at one point although his/her pronunciation is close to perfect there'll be always at least one word that will betray him/her which would indicate that the person is imitating.

If you erase those little give-aways and replace them by the genuine voice pronouncing the words that have been mispronounced by the imitator, then there is a big chance that the listener will be easily fooled.

Voice identification can pose problems indeed, but there are some other indicators than just the voice itself, which shouldn't be neglected. We should consider that every MJ's previous song is a reference. So, which among all thoses references from the past can we compare to the Cascio songs so that we can be able to assess the voice? If not a single song from the past is comparable in terms of singing, then we should raise a red flag.

 

[Pentum]

Ivy: Jason does the vibratos that he does in the studio, live.

"Let Me Let Go, 5 Millions views on Youtube! Make some nooooooooooooise!", that's our Jason. He sure was proud.

 

[Grent]

I thought it could be Michael

I gotta say, I'm not that embarrassed that I thought there were MJ samples in there.
We both knew, it wasn't a genuine thing to begin with. Many didn't! After all the Cascio stuff, I was really surprised, many fell for the snippet entirely. I think that says it all.

But Michael Jackson was also just a human being. And if someone is able to sound very similar for fractions of a second, it's hardly possible to distinguish those fractions from melodyned MJ samples - especially at that horrible quality.

But the thing is, fractions of a second should NEVER be enough to believe, it's a genuine MJ song and the rest just sounding different because of ... processing, tube, supervoice, shower, buttons ... anything. There was never any genuine MJ song, where we said 'it could be him' ... and we recognize him on the telephone.

 

[olved]

As far as I am concerned, here was my initial reaction regarding the voice on those tracks:-Breaking News: Immediate reaction - not Michael Jackson (not Jason Malachi either, until I heard towards the end of the song the grit sounding exactly like Jason Malachi "breaking the news")-Keep your head up: Immediate reaction - sounds like Michael Jackson, until I paid attention to vibrato and falsetto, which was a big give away and was sounding exactly like Jason Malachi (I already explained that I am not as accute when hearing a slow song as hearing a fast song)-Monster: Immediate reaction - Jason Malachi from the start till the end, and especially with parts "too bad" and the way he pronounces "stalking".

Funny, that was exactly my reactions on those songs too From the first hearing, I thought KYHU to be MJ (i'm also more good at fast songs, that on slow), and I almost felt relieved because I didn't want to believe that faking MJ song on his official album could be possible! But then I realised some funny thing - I didn't have an urge to listen to it again! How was that? It was new ballad from MJ, and I love his slow songs, his voice "melt me like hot candle wax" lol. And i did't want to listen to it again! Impossible! And when I literally pushed myself to hear it again, it became more and more clear, that something wrong, and I couldn't get this warm feeling inside, that i have every time I listen to Michael.The only plausible theory that I have on this situation (I don't want to think that Cascio betrayed him) is that Michael did record those songs as a favor to them and deliberately sung it that strange way (maybe even he tried to sound like JM!) knowing, that if those songs would ever see the light of day (he could guess that it would happen only after his death) fans wouldn't consider them as authentic. Why he would do that? Because, as I said, it could be a favor from him, they asked and he felt obliged to do it, as he lived with them at that time. But songs were not of his standards.I don't know if it's too far fretched for you, but with this theory I somehow manage to deal with fiasco (but still can't make myself to listen to it lol)

 

[Pentum]

^ So he did them a favor to record the songs sounding strange on purpose or sound like Jason Malachi? :/ I'm sorry to say it, but that's very far-fetched..

 

[Grent]

At least it's a brand new ex...planation !
And that clearly shows - no offence here, as it is perfectly natural and fine - no matter how it sounds, it's GOT TO BE Michael Jackson, because of all the circumstances (Cascio wouldn't betray, Sony wouldn't get fooled, ...).

However, that's no friendship if MJ f*cked up 12 songs on purpose.

 

[eXceLOfFam1]

^ yea and mj recorded the chorus of somebody's watching me as a favor and that sounds great lol

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Funny, that was exactly my reactions on those songs too From the first hearing, I thought KYHU to be MJ (i'm also more good at fast songs, that on slow), and I almost felt relieved because I didn't want to believe that faking MJ song on his official album could be possible! But then I realised some funny thing - I didn't have an urge to listen to it again! How was that? It was new ballad from MJ, and I love his slow songs, his voice "melt me like hot candle wax" lol. And i did't want to listen to it again! Impossible! And when I literally pushed myself to hear it again, it became more and more clear, that something wrong, and I couldn't get this warm feeling inside, that i have every time I listen to Michael.The only plausible theory that I have on this situation (I don't want to think that Cascio betrayed him) is that Michael did record those songs as a favor to them and deliberately sung it that strange way (maybe even he tried to sound like JM!) knowing, that if those songs would ever see the light of day (he could guess that it would happen only after his death) fans wouldn't consider them as authentic. Why he would do that? Because, as I said, it could be a favor from him, they asked and he felt obliged to do it, as he lived with them at that time. But songs were not of his standards.I don't know if it's too far fretched for you, but with this theory I somehow manage to deal with fiasco (but still can't make myself to listen to it lol)

I am glad to see people witnessing same things without being influenced by anyone. You see, for me, from the moment I got my eyebrows frowned while listening to those songs for the first time was a red flag for me, because I had never frowned my eyebrows before, not even for a split of a second when I heard some extremely short snippets such as "can't get your weight off of me". So how come I frown when listening to entire songs? My brain's telling me "something's not as it should be, but I can't say what. All I can say, it's unusual and more similar to an alien voice than to the familiar one."

 

[Arklove]

Monster is what did it for me...I kept trying to give each song a chance, even though BN and KYHU sounded so strange to me...but when I heard Monster, that is what cemented it for me...not a single part of that song says Michael to me...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Monster is what did it for me...I kept trying to give each song a chance, even though BN and KYHU sounded so strange to me...but when I heard Monster, that is what cemented it for me...not a single part of that song says Michael to me...

Me too, it was the last song I had heard by then. At the same time it was a fast song to which I am extremely sensitive.


@Ivy,

I don't know if you can confirm this in the U.S. legislation, but

I always thought that you need to reach 8 exact same notes in order to be able to sue someone for plagiarism. But when I read articles about forensic musicologists, you can consider something as plagiarism even if there are only two or three same notes.

So indeed, according to that theory it would mean that a part of "I just can't stop loving you" part is probably plagiarism, as much as "mamma se mamma sa mo makoosah" as much as Caribbean Queen, by Billy Ocean, in which you can hear Vincent's Price's laugh, Billie Jean rhythm, and some of Human Nature lyrics.

But also, still according to the same theory, "Monster" would be the plagiarism of "Let me let go". (Grent, please confirm the notes I asked you to transcribe a few months ago.)

Now, I don't want to focus on therights of going to court and suing, although Michael was sued for plagiarism for "mamma se mo mamma sa mo makoosah", he wasn't sued for "I just can't stop loving you". And neither did MJ sue Billy Ocean for "Caribbean Queen".

However, Billy Ocean never denied his inspiration.

Likewise Michael Jackson never denied his inspiration for Smooth Criminal from Fred Astaire.

[youtube]LiEqqQo0Pko[/youtube]

[youtube]B0GWCk9wnak[/youtube]



My question is, where does the inspiration come for Monster? If Jason Malachi contributed to it I can understand the similarities with Let me let go. But if MJ sang it (which actually I don't hear), I would have hard time to believe MJ got inspired from Jason Malachi as this latter is already as a matter of fact inspired by Michael Jackson.

 

[Grent]

Although BN didn't sound like him the one time I listened to it before the album purchase, my first real contact was CD Track 3: KYHU. I was almsot laughing. I highly dislike the song, and I also would, if MJ sang this lyrics and melody. But this voice ... I didn't catch the intensity of all of this back then. I just shook my head and thought: What the hell happened?

Monster ... well ... same as BN. But funnily, that "tooo baaad" part didn't affect me that much as most of you. Still doesn't.

 

[StellaJackson]

The big question is how on earth could sony have thought that tracks like Water, Fall In Love and All Right are Michael when signing the agreement to purchase these songs? I've never believed in complicity on their part but it is plainly obvious that those songs aren't Michael. Even if you've never heard of Jason it doesn't matter. It is clearly not the voice of Michael Jackson warbling away on those horrid songs.

 

[Grent]

Plagiarism, as far as I know, does not have certain rules like measured in notes or seconds (as it is reported quite often).

You all know the Simpsons. They often play/sing tunes that you are very familiar with, still they're different. It's because they don't want to get into legal trouble when obviously using well-known music from commercials, movies and so on. What they do is, simply exchange notes with musically related notes. Those notes have the same function but are not the same. Same goes for rhythm.

The same procedure is known in TV-commercials. They want you to feel something, but can't use / want the original tune. So they ask the musician to base his music on a specific music. They copy the sound and try to use related chords, melodies, notes. I already did this myself several times. Sometimes I would say, people go to far and IF a law suit was started, maybe the outcome would be plagiarism. Maybe. It's nothing that can easily be measured.

The Simpsons or maybe other comedians, I would say, often go too far. They won't get sued though. No sense in that.

Regarding Monster and Let me let go. My feeling is, that the songs are related. On purpose or not, that can't be said - therefore, pop music in general has many many overlappings. As for plagiarism, my feeling is NO. It is not enough. But are the songs very similar musically, YES.

Here is my analysis from the past:

Ok, both songs are in the same key which is C minor.
Let me let go repeats Cm, Gm, Fm, Gm. Throughout the whole song: VersA, VersB, Chorus, ...
Whereas VersB is the part which reminds of Monster's "tooo baaad" part. It's kind of the second part of the Vers which is like a build up towards the chorus. Note: not every song has such a strong indication of two distinct parts within a vers - this is the first similarity bewteen those two songs.

Monster however stays on Cm for the whole VersA part. Its VersB goes Ab, Bb, Cm, Cm, Ab, Bb, G, G.
Its Chorus goes Cm, Ab, Bb, G (twice).

My god, I am actually listen to this crap again ...:doh:

Let's focus on VersB. The basic melody is the same on both songs for the first 3 measures. We have the note eb on the first measure, f on the second and again eb on the third. In between those notes are 'fillers' and 'decorations'. The chords underneath are not the same but quite easily exchangeable with a little effort.

Therefore a small excourse: Speaking in very basic musical language, every major chord has a minor chord related. Why? Because they share the same notes. Easiest example: C major (abbreviated simply C) and A minor (Am) - they both use all the white keys on a piano. The same relation goes for Ab (major) and Fm and also for Bb (major) and Gm.

So if you play "tooo baaad" with Fm and Gm you are very close to where Let me let go is.

Let's focus on VersA. Although in regards of chords there is more happening in Let me let go than Monster, the Let me let go melody also fits to the Monster's steady Cm basis. The very same goes for the other way round, playing Monster's melody over Let me let go's chords. And the melody? Heavy use of the minor third between the notes c and eb in both songs. This is what musicians usually try to avoid: singing the same notes as the chord so dominantly (in this case Cm and c / eb). There is simply no tension.



Musically, those songs sound very much alike and I can easily say, musically, they are related.
This is the reason the comparison overlay between the two songs works so well.

And now please excuse me, I have to throw up. :upside_down:

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

The big question is how on earth could sony have thought that tracks like Water, Fall In Love and All Right are Michael when signing the agreement to purchase these songs? I've never believed in complicity on their part but it is plainly obvious that those songs aren't Michael. Even if you've never heard of Jason it doesn't matter. It is clearly not the voice of Michael Jackson warbling away on those horrid songs.

Oh I am actually not surprised at all. If the responsible ones for the purchasing and negotiating weren't that familiar with MJ's voice, it wouldn't be a problem to fool them, especially once the Estate itself accepted those songs as MJ. But the Estate isn't MJ, is it?

 

[Grent]

They were probably told all the exc...planations and bought them. Since the Cascios have a high reputation regarding Michael Jackson, why would they lie.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

They were probably told all the exc...planations and bought them. Since the Cascios have a high reputation regarding Michael Jackson, why would they lie.

Hence they did the so told tests after they purchased the tracks --when it was too late.

 

[dam2040]

That would make alot of sense. Something we haven't had too much of recently.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Does anyone know how to wave test a song ?