Michael - The Great Album Debate

[MusicMan26]

In my mind, I can't see how any fan could be satisfied with this situation. I realise there are some who believe the lead vocals on the Cascio songs are MJ - I don't have an issue with that, everyone's entitled to an opinion. However, there are many of us fans who are convinced that someone has just got away with large scale fraud. Surely, surely, if there was a possibility of that being the case, with so many fans seeing/hearing it, and it surely damaging any future MJ releases (and revenue for the kids), surely everyone would want to fight for transparency??

That's always been my opinion as well. And considering Michael has the biggest fan base on the planet, surely we could all get together as a community no matter what side we are on and do something about it. Just imagine how big of a force we could be if we all group together.

 

[ivy]

Suspicious about the lack of transparency and evidence. First the files were deleted, then the hard drive was broken, if any evidence were to exist Cascio would be ramming it down our throats, the alleged audio analysis that took place, the ever changing explanations shower/PVC pipe/melodyne/guide vocals/etc., the lack of any shred of evidence at all.

- first of all if anyone is wondering : I finished breakfast , put the dishes in the machine, started first load of laundry, vacuumed the top floor, put the first load in the dryer, started the second load of laundry and now I'm taking a breather while I'm refreshing with liquid. Can I post?

This post will be logical and rational with a little bit of explanations. I know the response I get will be "but I don't hear Michael". But please hear me out.

suspicious about lack of transparency and evidence. - No. and here's why

Cascio's

- Unlike many who jumped to blame Cascios, I think we need to evaluate them based on their 25 year history with Michael. In my opinion they had chance to sell Michael out twice - during allegations- but they didn't. In 1993 their father refused to sit down and talk with DA and sent his sons to tour with Michael. In 2005 Frank refused immunity from DA - even though he could face prison time, and 2 of their younger siblings were on the witness list. There's nothing to suggest that they are capable of doing what they are accused of.
- Therefore I find it hard to believe the notion of they either had fake songs lying around and were waiting Michael to die to cash in or they changed character after he died. It's simply illogical.
- There's nothing to suggest that they benefited from these songs. They had 4 restaurants, financially secure - it's still the same. Eddie is still the no name musician. There's no obvious change or benefit to them from faking the songs. Their lives are the same.
- I was fortunate enough to get to know Frank - yes I know he's not Eddie- and talk with him extensively. recently I also talked with 2 other people who spent hours with Frank. Our opinion is the same, Frank comes out as a sincere human that loves Michael a lot. Again that makes me think they aren't the people to betray Michael.

Songs
- To me it's completely logical that Michael could have involved in them to help Eddie to start a career. He did the same thing for his siblings (Rebbie, Latoya) and his cousins (3T). I posted an article that showed Michael got Eddie a writing job at Sony/ATV. Therefore it's quite reasonable to think that Michael would have supported his project (such as by doing background vocals for Porte album) or sing some songs of Eddie to make him a name and open doors for him.
- If the above is true that explains why the songs do not necessarily fit with Michael or have his passion. They might not be songs that he was madly, deeply in love with, they can simply be something that he's supporting a friend with. (compare his acting is Miss Cast Away to Moonwalker - get my point?)

- When you add all together and if we think that these songs were going to be worked on in the future before release, and go with the logical assumption that Cascio's didn't expect Michael to die (no one did) , it will also make sense that they wouldn't think about or feel the need to have "evidence" when they were recording these songs in 2007.

Sony
- From Martha Washington and Paula Abdul lawsuits we have learned that it's possible to use other vocals to create composite lead vocals and only need to credit them as background vocals. If Sony wanted to enhance vocals they had million other totally legal alternatives to use then to participate in a soundalike fraud. Especially with the most well known of them all? It doesn't make sense.

Statement
- Although you might not believe the Estate and Epic statements, just realize that "official" statements have a different meaning in legal setting. What they say on that statement can be used against them. So you have to either think 1) they are lying on that statement or 2) they can back it up. (I'll come to this in a little bit)

Authenticity , evidence, transparency
- Although some believe that Sony/ Cascio or Estate have something to hide , I personally don't think so. Their actions speak the other way. For example Sony is suing multiple fans, and it's rumored that they are dealing with counter complaints about authenticity of the songs. As Sony is the one that's starting legal action, I think they are very confident in their position and probably can back their authenticity claims. This makes me believe that they can show everything they claimed in the statements. Logically if they had something to hide, or if they were cornered, or if fans had proved anything - Sony wouldn't be the one going around starting lawsuits.
- Although the fans want to see the "evidence" in the sake of transparency, it makes all the sense in the world that Sony and the others wouldn't show their hand. It's like playing poker. You don't show your cards to your opponent. Think Murray lawsuit. During prelim it was Michael drank Propofol and the prosecution prepared for it. But when the opening statements came it was he took 8 Lorazepam pills - surprise. Lawsuits are about strategy and tactics as much as the evidence. Again you don't show your hand. So if Sony was being careful and expecting the worst - ie. lawsuit- it would make all the sense that they wouldn't show their hand off the bat. Your only chance to see the evidence is if those lawsuits proceed and some evidence becomes public then.

That being said I think we are also experiencing some sort of window dressing here, Such as
- Friedman calling them finished or complete to give them a boast
- even some exaggeration

However it can be argued that "MJ was trying to help a friend so he reported those work in process demos in a basement" isn't as good as saying "these are the most finished songs that Michael couldn't wait to finish and bring to fans". Some would call it marketing. Some will argue ethics.

 

[kopwatcher]

That's always been my opinion as well. And considering Michael has the biggest fan base on the planet, surely we could all get together as a community no matter what side we are on and do something about it. Just imagine how big of a force we could be if we all group together.

I've heard of one or two efforts to do something about it. I do know this though - if they use more Cascio songs on future albums (and indications strongly suggest they will), then this will happen all over again. I will never accept this.

 

[kopwatcher]

Unlike many who jumped to blame Cascios, I think we need to evaluate them based on their 25 year history with Michael. In my opinion they had chance to sell Michael out twice - during allegations- but they didn't. In 1993 their father refused to sit down and talk with DA and sent his sons to tour with Michael. In 2005 Frank refused immunity from DA - even though he could face prison time, and 2 of their younger siblings were on the witness list. There's nothing to suggest that they are capable of doing what they are accused of.

You're extrapolating behaviour from before MJ died (when they had something to gain from the relationship), to after he died (when there was effectively no relationship).

There's nothing to suggest that they benefited from these songs. They had 4 restaurants, financially secure - it's still the same. Eddie is still the no name musician. There's no obvious change or benefit to them from faking the songs. Their lives are the same.

I don't know what they were paid. Do you?

I was fortunate enough to get to know Frank - yes I know he's not Eddie- and talk with him extensively. recently I also talked with 2 other people who spent hours with Frank. Our opinion is the same, Frank comes out as a sincere human that loves Michael a lot. Again that makes me think they aren't the people to betray Michael.

I can see why that makes you more compelled to defend him.

- To me it's completely logical that Michael could have involved in them to help Eddie to start a career. He did the same thing for his siblings (Rebbie, Latoya) and his cousins (3T). I posted an article that showed Michael got Eddie a writing job at Sony/ATV. Therefore it's quite reasonable to think that Michael would have supported his project (such as by doing background vocals for Porte album) or sing some songs of Eddie to make him a name and open doors for him.
- If the above is true that explains why the songs do not necessarily fit with Michael or have his passion. They might not be songs that he was madly, deeply in love with, they can simply be something that he's supporting a friend with. (compare his acting is Miss Cast Away to Moonwalker - get my point?)

Happy with that. Happy that he could have been involved. Very annoyed that they try and tell us that it's him on lead vocal.

- When you add all together and if we think that these songs were going to be worked on in the future before release, and go with the logical assumption that Cascio's didn't expect Michael to die (no one did) , it will also make sense that they wouldn't think about or feel the need to have "evidence" when they were recording these songs in 2007.

No-one gets evidence in preparation for someone dying. It's naturally accumulated through the creative process. No one throws away every bit of material produced when working with Michael f-ing jackson. Sorry, doesn't wash.

- From Martha Washington and Paula Abdul lawsuits we have learned that it's possible to use other vocals to create composite lead vocals and only need to credit them as background vocals. If Sony wanted to enhance vocals they had million other totally legal alternatives to use then to participate in a soundalike fraud. Especially with the most well known of them all? It doesn't make sense.

You're right, it doesn't make sense. So why are so many of us hearing exactly the same thing? A simple idea can't influence people in such a strong way (i.e. make us hear the JM similarities) - especially those of us still here who are obviously very strong willed and opinionated.

- Although you might not believe the Estate and Epic statements, just realize that "official" statements have a different meaning in legal setting. What they say on that statement can be used against them. So you have to either think 1) they are lying on that statement or 2) they can back it up. (I'll come to this in a little bit)

The former, I think. I'll get to why in a minute.

Although some believe that Sony/ Cascio or Estate have something to hide , I personally don't think so. Their actions speak the other way. For example Sony is suing multiple fans, and it's rumored that they are dealing with counter complaints about authenticity of the songs. As Sony is the one that's starting legal action, I think they are very confident in their position and probably can back their authenticity claims. This makes me believe that they can show everything they claimed in the statements. Logically if they had something to hide, or if they were cornered, or if fans had proved anything - Sony wouldn't be the one going around starting lawsuits.
- Although the fans want to see the "evidence" in the sake of transparency, it makes all the sense in the world that Sony and the others wouldn't show their hand. It's like playing poker. You don't show your cards to your opponent. Think Murray lawsuit. During prelim it was Michael drank Propofol and the prosecution prepared for it. But when the opening statements came it was he took 8 Lorazepam pills - surprise. Lawsuits are about strategy and tactics as much as the evidence. Again you don't show your hand. So if Sony was being careful and expecting the worst - ie. lawsuit- it would make all the sense that they wouldn't show their hand off the bat. Your only chance to see the evidence is if those lawsuits proceed and some evidence becomes public then.

Global corporate business are very agressive when it comes to protecting their profit. The poker hand argument is not logical. You can stop any potential lawsuits by showing the evidence right away. They then have the opportunity to control how the evidence is shown and avoid a messy lawsuit that could result in damaging media coverage and reputation loss. There's no logical reason to wait.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

This post will be logical and rational with a little bit of explanations. I know the response I get will be "but I don't hear Michael". But please hear me out.

Just imagine through what we have to go to "conclude" that it's supposedly Michael Jackson on those songs. A whole step by step analysis of the situation. People out there don't care about the private relationship between the Cascios and Michael, they care about what they indeed hear.

suspicious about lack of transparency and evidence. - No. and here's why

Cascio's

- Unlike many who jumped to blame Cascios, I think we need to evaluate them based on their 25 year history with Michael. In my opinion they had chance to sell Michael out twice - during allegations- but they didn't. In 1993 their father refused to sit down and talk with DA and sent his sons to tour with Michael. In 2005 Frank refused immunity from DA - even though he could face prison time, and 2 of their younger siblings were on the witness list. There's nothing to suggest that they are capable of doing what they are accused of.
- Therefore I find it hard to believe the notion of they either had fake songs lying around and were waiting Michael to die to cash in or they changed character after he died. It's simply illogical.
- There's nothing to suggest that they benefited from these songs. They had 4 restaurants, financially secure - it's still the same. Eddie is still the no name musician. There's no obvious change or benefit to them from faking the songs. Their lives are the same.

Why would the Cascios sell out Michael if Michael was innocent????? It wouldn't have been a sell-out if they had done it, but wrongful accusations.
In this case we don't have wrongful accusations but 12 untracable tracks that seem to appear from nowhere.

Songs
- To me it's completely logical that Michael could have involved in them to help Eddie to start a career. He did the same thing for his siblings (Rebbie, Latoya) and his cousins (3T). I posted an article that showed Michael got Eddie a writing job at Sony/ATV. Therefore it's quite reasonable to think that Michael would have supported his project (such as by doing background vocals for Porte album) or sing some songs of Eddie to make him a name and open doors for him.
- If the above is true that explains why the songs do not necessarily fit with Michael or have his passion. They might not be songs that he was madly, deeply in love with, they can simply be something that he's supporting a friend with. (compare his acting is Miss Cast Away to Moonwalker - get my point?)
- When you add all together and if we think that these songs were going to be worked on in the future before release, and go with the logical assumption that Cascio's didn't expect Michael to die (no one did) , it will also make sense that they wouldn't think about or feel the need to have "evidence" when they were recording these songs in 2007.

You are forcing your logic onto this one. It's not because Michael might have helped them that he actually made those 12 songs. There is no single trace nor correlation of what you are saying that the songs are genuine. Michael might have helped so the songs are genuine?

Sony
- From Martha Washington and Paula Abdul lawsuits we have learned that it's possible to use other vocals to create composite lead vocals and only need to credit them as background vocals. If Sony wanted to enhance vocals they had million other totally legal alternatives to use then to participate in a soundalike fraud. Especially with the most well known of them all? It doesn't make sense.

We don't know anything about the reasons behind SONY's strategy. We can only speculate one way or another, there won't be one logical explanation, but as many as there are possibilities and alternatives, including the one that we are experiencing right now.

Statement
- Although you might not believe the Estate and Epic statements, just realize that "official" statements have a different meaning in legal setting. What they say on that statement can be used against them. So you have to either think 1) they are lying on that statement or 2) they can back it up. (I'll come to this in a little bit)

Authenticity , evidence, transparency
- Although some believe that Sony/ Cascio or Estate have something to hide , I personally don't think so. Their actions speak the other way. For example Sony is suing multiple fans, and it's rumored that they are dealing with counter complaints about authenticity of the songs. As Sony is the one that's starting legal action, I think they are very confident in their position and probably can back their authenticity claims. This makes me believe that they can show everything they claimed in the statements. Logically if they had something to hide, or if they were cornered, or if fans had proved anything - Sony wouldn't be the one going around starting lawsuits.
- Although the fans want to see the "evidence" in the sake of transparency, it makes all the sense in the world that Sony and the others wouldn't show their hand. It's like playing poker. You don't show your cards to your opponent. Think Murray lawsuit. During prelim it was Michael drank Propofol and the prosecution prepared for it. But when the opening statements came it was he took 8 Lorazepam pills - surprise. Lawsuits are about strategy and tactics as much as the evidence. Again you don't show your hand. So if Sony was being careful and expecting the worst - ie. lawsuit- it would make all the sense that they wouldn't show their hand off the bat. Your only chance to see the evidence is if those lawsuits proceed and some evidence becomes public then.

This is just a bunch of I don't know what kind of twisted logic compared to what Barry Gibb did. You have the proof, you show it, end of story and end of blahblah.

That being said I think we are also experiencing some sort of window dressing here, Such as
- Friedman calling them finished or complete to give them a boast
- even some exaggeration

However it can be argued that "MJ was trying to help a friend so he reported those work in process demos in a basement" isn't as good as saying "these are the most finished songs that Michael couldn't wait to finish and bring to fans". Some would call it marketing. Some will argue ethics.

So your logic dictates you that Michael sang those song, but your logic completely ignores the voice timbre, the snorts, the pronunciation of some words, the vibrato, and what not...

 

[ivy]

You're extrapolating behaviour from before MJ died (when they had something to gain from the relationship), to after he died (when there was effectively no relationship).

1. what did they gain from their relationship when Michael was alive?
--- DA searched for any money between Michael and Cascio's there was none.
--- The children lived under the public belief that they could have been molested - media had camped outside their house
--- Frank lived under the threat of being charged with a crime and prison time
--- They kept their relationship mostly private
--- They still had the restaurants and individual wealth.

2. What evidence or suggestion that you have that these people - or anyone for that matter - who have been friends for 25 years would have change their behavior overnight just because their friend died?

I don't know what they were paid. Do you?

No. Apparently not a life changing amount and that was my point. Would you risk your livelihood for some minor benefit?

I can see why that makes you more compelled to defend him.

As I said Frank and Eddie are two different people. Furthermore I don't understand the logic. People feel content to sit across a computer and make conclusions about a group of people they have never met, never talked. I had the chance to get to know at least one of them and that's suddenly a bad thing? On the contrary I think my interaction with him makes me a better judge of character than random strangers who doesn't know him.

Also it's important to add I only got to know Frank the last few months. My opinion about the songs has always been the same and been determined and I "defended" these songs long before I even met or started talking with Frank.

No-one gets evidence in preparation for someone dying. It's naturally accumulated through the creative process. No one throws away every bit of material produced when working with Michael f-ing jackson. Sorry, doesn't wash.

and why are you taking Taryll's word as fact? According to Teddy Riley there's some evidence such as handwritten lyrics, text messages about the songs. Friedman says there's work tapes. Rumor is it that Jackson's also did a third test and it again came back as Michael.

You're right, it doesn't make sense. So why are so many of us hearing exactly the same thing? A simple idea can't influence people in such a strong way (i.e. make us hear the JM similarities) - especially those of us still here who are obviously very strong willed and opinionated.

don't bet on it.

Global corporate business are very agressive when it comes to protecting their profit. The poker hand argument is not logical. You can stop any potential lawsuits by showing the evidence right away. They then have the opportunity to control how the evidence is shown and avoid a messy lawsuit that could result in damaging media coverage and reputation loss. There's no logical reason to wait.

what messy lawsuit? and you are forgetting the fact that they are starting the lawsuits themselves. It's not something they want to go away for worried about media coverage and reputation loss. It shows me that they are confident. and fans asked for the expert reports before, They used "proprietary" wording. I'm betting that shows they'll keep it private.

So your logic dictates you that Michael sang those song, but your logic completely ignores the voice timbre, the snorts, the pronunciation of some words, the vibrato, and what not...

bumper - I'll keep ignoring your post as long as you seem to not understand the discussion at hand and jump topics and misinterpret what I'm saying. The question was "are you suspicious as there's no evidence and transparency?". It wasn't about vocals. I multiple times wrote how I came to the conclusion about the vocals and it wasn't due to logic. I explained Malachi's technique. So as I said, if you would keep misunderstanding the discussion topic and change/combine/mix up what is being said, I ain't replying.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

bumper - I'll keep ignoring your post as long as you seem to not understand the discussion at hand and jump topics and misinterpret what I'm saying. The question was "are you suspicious as there's no evidence and transparency?". It wasn't about vocals. I multiple times wrote how I came to the conclusion about the vocals and it wasn't due to logic. I explained Malachi's technique. So as I said, if you would keep misunderstanding the discussion topic and change/combine/mix up what is being said, I ain't replying.

I've just watched Moonwalker.

Someone who tells me that the singer who sings "Man in the mirror" (Michael Jackson) and "Fall in love" (????) has identical voice or that it's the same singer, well, yes, may ignore me, and I'll ignore that person just as much. But I will defend Michael Jackson's vocal abilities and no Eddie, Teddy or Ivy will stop me.

 

[kopwatcher]

1. what did they gain from their relationship when Michael was alive?
--- DA searched for any money between Michael and Cascio's there was none.
--- The children lived under the public belief that they could have been molested - media had camped outside their house
--- Frank lived under the threat of being charged with a crime and prison time
--- They kept their relationship mostly private
--- They still had the restaurants and individual wealth.

You might ask that question of any of the thousands that tried to associate themselves with MJ. Sometimes the benefits are not material in nature.

No. Apparently not a life changing amount and that was my point. Would you risk your livelihood for some minor benefit?

How minor is 'minor'? Again, we don't know.

As I said Frank and Eddie are two different people. Furthermore I don't understand the logic. People feel content to sit across a computer and make conclusions about a group of people they have never met, never talked. I had the chance to get to know at least one of them and that's suddenly a bad thing? On the contrary I think my interaction with him makes me a better judge of character than random strangers who doesn't know him.
Also it's important to add I only got to know Frank the last few months. My opinion about the songs has always been the same and been determined and I "defended" these songs long before I even met or started talking with Frank.

Actually, it works both ways. I've never met any of them, so I don't have any reason to attack nor defend them apart from what I hear on the album. I didn't even know who they were until this all erupted.

and why are you taking Taryll's word as fact? According to Teddy Riley there's some evidence such as handwritten lyrics, text messages about the songs. Friedman says there's work tapes. Rumor is it that Jackson's also did a third test and it again came back as Michael.

AWESOME. I've got evidence that MJ never even heard of Monster. Rumour has it there's also a handwritten confession from Jason Malachi somewhere. Do you see? I would be more inclined to believe Taryll over Friedman, but let's not get into that.

what messy lawsuit? and you are forgetting the fact that they are starting the lawsuits themselves. It's not something they want to go away for worried about media coverage and reputation loss. It shows me that they are confident. and fans asked for the expert reports before, They used "proprietary" wording. I'm betting that shows they'll keep it private.

Hence my point about corporate "aggression". There's a saying somewhere about the best form of defence. Let me tell you - that report will never come out, except in the far future when this has all blown over (if it even exists).

 

[ivy]

You might ask that question of any of the thousands that tried to associate themselves with MJ. Sometimes the benefits are not material in nature.

you forgot this one

2. What evidence or suggestion that you have that these people - or anyone for that matter - who have been friends for 25 years would have change their behavior overnight just because their friend died?

and also now you are discussing general terms. So is your logic that "no one can be trusted forget the history". I'll say it doesn't make sense. You can't generalize people to a lump sum and you need to look to the history.

How minor is 'minor'? Again, we don't know.

It doesn't have to be monetary either. Record deals could be a good motive. but today 1 year after the fact if Malachi is still a cop working 9 to 5 with no monetary or musical benefit or if the Cascio's are still the same family with the same business and houses and with no musical benefits, then the logical question to ask is why?. People do not turn into criminals and expose themselves to lawsuits for no reason.

I'm yet to hear a reason for their alleged behavior and an explanation of how these people supposedly benefited from it.

Actually, it works both ways. I've never met any of them, so I don't have any reason to attack nor defend them apart from what I hear on the album. I didn't even know who they were until this all erupted.

It wasn't addressed to you personally but there have been people who attacked them personally without even knowing them. Funny thing is that even though these songs might turn out to be fake, no one knows who faked them. So any attack could be unfounded.

AWESOME. I've got evidence that MJ never even heard of Monster. Rumour has it there's also a handwritten confession from Jason Malachi somewhere. Do you see? I would be more inclined to believe Taryll over Friedman, but let's not get into that.

Well I'll just say I have good reason to believe that some sort of "evidence" exists but it's not conclusive.

Hence my point about corporate "aggression". There's a saying somewhere about the best form of defence. Let me tell you - that report will never come out, except in the far future when this has all blown over (if it even exists).

best defense is the offense saying in games and military and so on but it doesn't apply to lawsuits. In legal circles the rule is settle when you can. It's still my opinion is that if they go around starting these lawsuits they are confident and they can back up their claims. And I don't expect that report to come out either - unless it's filed in a lawsuit.

@bumper - you are not capable of ignoring me. You again jumped into my conversation with kopwatcher.


edited to add: and if anyone is keeping track. third load is in the washer. other 2 has been dried, folded, put away. made a salad and pasta, had lunch, washed the dishes, made 2 beds, vacuumed the lower level, paid my bills, got my mail. Now I'm off to deal with MJJC Q&A's.

 

[kopwatcher]

ivy, it's been an experience debating with you. I must admit I did try to put you on my ignore list, but alas was not able to as you are an admin. I suspect we will never see eye to eye on this, so I won't engage with you anymore in this thread. Instead I will be engaging in something which is hopefully more constructive for the cause

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

@bumper - you are not capable of ignoring me. You again jumped into my conversation with kopwatcher.

Again, this is a public forum. I did not jump into anyone's private conversation. I'm perfectly able to ignore anyone who attacks me, I don't care what people think about me.

But I won't be ignoring any post -regardless who posts it- whith claims that it is logical that those Cascio songs are Michael. I've always said it and I am repeating it, my interest here is Michael Jackson, and no one else. I do not care about Teddy or Eddie or Frank, or anyone else.

By the way, didn't you yourself told me that you were going to ignore me, more than once actually, yet you always end up talking to me.

 

[ivy]

ivy, it's been an experience debating with you. I must admit I did try to put you on my ignore list, but alas was not able to as you are an admin. I suspect we will never see eye to eye on this, so I won't engage with you anymore in this thread. Instead I will be engaging in something which is hopefully more constructive for the cause .

You always have the option to not address any posts towards me and not read and response to my posts. You can exercise personal control/restraint and do not need an ignore function for that.

Recently Grent asked me he doesn't understand why I keep on debating. And honestly this is one of the reasons. But probably no one will understand what I mean.

By the way, didn't you yourself told me that you were going to ignore me, more than once actually, yet you always end up talking to me.

I ignore your posts about the topic, I make small talk with you. You can't ignore my posts about the topic and even if they are addressed to someone else you feel the need to jump in and spend time typing answers back to me- even though you know I'm not responding to your such posts. If I was you rather than spending time typing a response that I know won't get a response back, I'll rather have sex with my significant other.

 

[Chamife]

Wow, many interesting posts I'd like to answer to...Don't think I can respond as I would to everything (because of work-and family obligations..), but first the issue about friends betraying Michael after 25 years:

-When one of the parents die, many times the children force their own mother or father out of the house to get their share of the value of it. They do this to their own mother or father, while he or she is ALIVE...Money is more important.

- How many sibblings don't speak to eachother again after their parents die because of the money involved? Money is more important than familieties.

Money can be more important to some people than friendship or familyties.

and thanks Bumper (I thought it was) for mentioning Audacity. Always wondered how to make comparisons.

and about ALL of the Cascio family being involved: That doesn't have to be the case. Can be a solo (duo?) action, whilst the parents, siblings never knew a thing about it.

 

[Willy]

I'm done reading Frank Cascio's book, and after reading it, I'd like to know how the pro-fake people here can actually believe that the whole Cascio family -- father, mother, brothers, sisters -- would willingly go along with a criminal hoax that is just about the most disrespectful and evil thing they could do to their friend MJ -- someone they spent years living with, caring for, helping in moments of need, etc. The idea that this family -- who have never been suspected of being anything less than amazingly great and loyal friends to MJ -- would turn around, right after his death, and exploit his memory in the most sacrilegious way one can imagine. It makes NO sense. The father wouldn't go along with it -- he's got restaurants, a reputation, a career : he doesn't need this. The mother wouldn't go along with this. Eddie wouldn't do this -- it would be crazy, criminal, would potentially ruin his whole life if found out, would endanger his plans of making it as a legitimate producer in the biz. And Frank wouldn't go along with it either -- if the guy was as evil as going along with this implies, his book about MJ would have been a negative tell-all, and it would have sold a LOT more copies, and he would have gotten on a LOT more TV shows if it had been the case.

Same old "the Cascios wouldn't do it" argument. No one blames the whole family, it's all down to the Cascio brothers. I see that Frank's book and all those funny touching little stories blinds people's view. If Frank was such a noble and great friend and person as some people portray him he wouldn't have written any book and kept his private memories about Michael for himself and he wouldn't have had to make rounds from one tv show to another, promoting his book in exchange for a little drug addiction talk.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I ignore your posts about the topic, I make small talk with you. You can't ignore my posts about the topic and even if they are addressed to someone else you feel the need to jump in and spend time typing answers back to me- even though you know I'm not responding to your such posts. If I was you rather than spending time typing a response that I know won't get a response back, I'll rather have sex with my significant other.

Well when you speak about Michael Jackson, I won't ignore anyone. I'll be here. The rest of your comment is just so predictable.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Hey ADKI, I was just wandering why when Jesta posted that long statement, you only replied to very specific points. thanks.

Sorry what statement ?

The one asking for how the songs were tested, etc ?

I did answer I sent the note from the estate which said how they were tested.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

You know nobody was claiming that comparisons were "actual" proof, but only theoretical.

I would agree with you that it is a waste of time for Ivy to make the comparisons, but the matter of the fact is that Ivy did spend (or waste if you prefer) hours, days, weeks, months, a year now in posting lengthy posts and not a single one with some vocal comparison, not for the actual proof sake, but for the debate sake in order to show the doubters which parts sound Michael. Is it that difficult to do? Nobody's asking the impossible though, so why is it easier (or less a waste of time) to post miles long posts than a simple voice to voice comparison?

You know, comparing the voices doesn't have to be any kind of proof, but also a share of opinion. It's a part of a simple discussion among people, nothing more. From the moment the believers stick to the only televised proof there is: Eddy's and Teddy's word: "It is Michael" and "Nobody can scream like that" + the extremely vague report by the Estate, and at the same time criticize the comparisons, I am asking them where are the official results of the analysis of the tracks by those "best experts"? No need to show them despite unhappy fans? Is that a healthy situation for the MJ fan community? Sorry, but not to me.

The doubters at least show why they doubt the authenticity of the tracks. What is use of simply saying "I don't hear Michael" or "I hear Michael"? Well for heaven's sake show it where you hear Michael if you hear Michael, it takes a couple of minutes, which is much shorter than typing neverending posts.

It's always much easier to criticize others than question oneself. So, if Ivy wants to criticize others for those comparisons, fine, but then she should suggest an alternative and instead of proving others wrong, maybe she should also try to prove she's right, which she fails to do.

See asking believers to show where they hear Michael is dumb (IMO) because we (At least me) hear MJ on the whole song now doubters like to say "It's not him on this part or this part or this one" so they post a video or audio file trying to show where they don't hear MJ.

 

[Willy]

Everyone (except the people who don't care about it) - I've just discovered the http://www.fakemichael.com/ site again and it is very good. It succinctly provides the information and then some comparison videos for people to make their own judgement. Can I suggest that we post the link to this site all over YouTube and in every forum and chatroom we can find? If we can raise awareness of this (make it go viral even), perhaps the media might pick it up again? I'll do it by myself if I have to.

Thats the best thing we, as fans who believe/know the songs are fake could do. Actually that's what I've been doing on my own to some minor extent. I've written a little summary in my language and posted it here and there along with the link to that site. I wish we could all organize ourselves and at least tried to be heard.

 

[SoCav]

See asking believers to show where they hear Michael is dumb (IMO) because we (At least me) hear MJ on the whole song now doubters like to say "It's not him on this part or this part or this one" so they post a video or audio file trying to show where they don't hear MJ.

Well, there are several people who classify themselves as 'believers' who think that the majority but not all of the vocals are MJ, rather than 100% MJ like you think. I guess it's a matter of classification.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

See asking believers to show where they hear Michael is dumb (IMO) because we (At least me) hear MJ on the whole song now doubters like to say "It's not him on this part or this part or this one" so they post a video or audio file trying to show where they don't hear MJ.

Well if asking is dumb, then believing it's MJ is dumb too.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Well if asking is dumb, then believing it's MJ is dumb too.

You don't get it huh ?

I said "Asking believers to show where they hear Michael is dumb" because they say they hear MJ why ask them where.

Update: On the song not part of the song.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Well, there are several people who classify themselves as 'believers' who think that the majority but not all of the vocals are MJ, rather than 100% MJ like you think. I guess it's a matter of classification.

All the posts I've read from believers before they were bullied out say they hear Michael on this song not on this part.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

You don't get it huh ?

I said "Asking believers to show where they hear Michael is dumb" because they say they hear MJ why ask them where.

Update: On the song not part of the song.

Then in principle it would be even easier to make a comparison of any part of the Cascio song with any other specific part of a MJ's previous song. But this is the core problem, none of them are comparable. This is what has been asked.

For example I compared Michael's husks from different eras and different songs with Hollywood Tonight and Behind the Mask, and I posted the comparisons here; they all matched.

 

[kreen]

I must admit I did try to put you on my ignore list, but alas was not able to as you are an admin.

Perfect example of what is wrong with the pro-fake camp. They're so emotional about their hatred of the Cascio songs that they just can't deal with dissenting opinions. Yeah, just put everybody -- the whole world -- on "ignore". That will help you get to the truth, in this matter or in any other.

 

[Chamife]

You don't get it huh ?

I said "Asking believers to show where they hear Michael is dumb" because they say they hear MJ why ask them where.

Update: On the song not part of the song.

I would like to ask you a question: What is it that you love specifically about Michael's singing? What attracts you in Michael's voice/singing? You surely can name one specific aspect?

And then I have a following question: Do you recognize this/these thing (s) in the Cascio songs too and maybe you can point out where?

 

[kreen]

No one blames the whole family, it's all down to the Cascio brothers.

Actually, it's not. The Cascio songs were recorded in Papa Cascio and Mama Cascio's own house! That's where Eddie lives (you know those Italian boys, they never leave the nest!). So if MJ never actually recorded those songs with their own son over a 4-month period, and if their own son got an impersonator IN THEIR HOUSE to record a bunch of fake tracks, Mom and Dad would know. And they wouldn't like it. Unless of course they're criminals, but nothing in their entire lives allows you to make that assumption.

 

[ivy]

Same old "the Cascios wouldn't do it" argument. No one blames the whole family, it's all down to the Cascio brothers.

I guess you haven't been around. People DID blame the whole family. They compared them to Arvizos and Chandlers. People alleged that they kept silent and become conspirators etc by attending Oprah show. They alleged that the mother would be the next to sell Michael out.

Furthermore why would it be "Cascio brothers". Frank in his book says he had a falling out with Eddie and wasn't close with him during that time and even after Michael's death till this song controversy started. So why would he be included in that?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Some innocent questions regarding Breaking News:

A) How many times have you heard Michael Jackson saying his full name in a song so far?

B) Have you heard any big caliber artists saying their names in their songs such as Phil Collins, Madonna, George Michael, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, James Brown,...?

C) Have you ever heard smaller caliber artists saying their names in their songs such as Jason Malachi, or hip hop artists such as Snoop Doggy Dog, MC Hammer, Dr. Dre, ...etc?

I wasn't bothered by the possibility that Michael Jackson could say his own name in his songs, but I can't stop thinking that it was simply not his style at all to do it. As if he would self-promote his name in the song.

 

[Willy]

Actually, it's not. The Cascio songs were recorded in Papa Cascio and Mama Cascio's own house! That's where Eddie lives (you know those Italian boys, they never leave the nest!). So if MJ never actually recorded those songs with their own son over a 4-month period, and if their own son got an impersonator IN THEIR HOUSE to record a bunch of fake tracks, Mom and Dad would know. And they wouldn't like it. Unless of course they're criminals, but nothing in their entire lives allows you to make that assumption.

I'm not here to defend Cascios but I assume the less people involved the better and the parents have no role to play in this except for vouching for their kids which they can do better without actually knowing the truth. Do you seriously think that they follow their son non stop and check up on people he invites to his basement studio. Besides, who knows where the songs were recorded, maybe it happened at Malachi's or some other location.

I guess you haven't been around. People DID blame the whole family. They compared them to Arvizos and Chandlers. People alleged that they kept silent and become conspirators etc by attending Oprah show. They alleged that the mother would be the next to sell Michael out.

Furthermore why would it be "Cascio brothers". Frank in his book says he had a falling out with Eddie and wasn't close with him during that time and even after Michael's death till this song controversy started. So why would he be included in that?

What Frank says in his book can be taken with a grain of salt.

1. According to some early Friedman's report (not that he's a reliable source but he is pro-Cascio) he co-wrote some of these songs yet he is not credited. (Like he didn't want to be associated with them just in case)
2. He went to Oprah supporting his brother.
3. He further supports him in his book basically confirming the whole Michael/Eddie/Porte story.
So unless he's clueless and didn't really witness anything (Michael recordind the songs) but just blindly supports his brother like his parents do, he has to be in the know. He may not be the brain of it all - Eddie is, he may want to keep himself away from this as much as possible but I think he knows the truth. He's too smart to not know whats going on even if he didn't participate in this.

 

[Arklove]

Some innocent questions regarding Breaking News:

A) How many times have you heard Michael Jackson saying his full name in a song so far?

B) Have you heard any big caliber artists saying their names in their songs such as Phil Collins, Madonna, George Michael, The Beatles, Elvis Presley, James Brown,...?

C) Have you ever heard smaller caliber artists saying their names in their songs such as Jason Malachi, or hip hop artists such as Snoop Doggy Dog, MC Hammer, Dr. Dre, ...etc?

I wasn't bothered by the possibility that Michael Jackson could say his own name in his songs, but I can't stop thinking that it was simply not his style at all to do it. As if he would self-promote his name in the song.

That repetitive 'Because I'm Michael Jackson'....Has not settled with me since I first heard the song over a year ago....It's just too weird....He was much more of a deep lyricist than that...Not his style, you're right....That's why I think it's important to talk about the lyrics and composition of the songs, although the vocals are the most important...but Michael was an artist in totality....If one part is off, the whole thing is off, IMO