Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Chamife said:
It's not quite the kind of humming I meant, but thanks for the clip. Never heard it before.
Click to expand...

Oh with some good bass, the drums are amazing.

There are some jewels worthy on those older albums, try the whole J5 albums:

-Get It Together
-Dancing Machine
-Moving Violation

They're excellent. As far as I am concerned, they're even better than The Jacksons (1976) and Goin' Places (1977).
 
BUMPER SNIPPET;3572186 said:
I've just relistened to Burn 2Nite on youtube...

Does anyone really hear Michael on Burn 2Nite?
Click to expand...

Yep, it sounds like MJ, with Porte basically replacing him on the chorus. It's not a good MJ vocal, though, and it sounds like it was recorded in a basement, by amateurs, just for fun, and was never meant to be released. It also sounds like it was overproduced to make it releasable. And it sounds like MJ wasn’t exactly at the top of his form vocally or otherwise when he recorded those vocals in 2007.

Basically, it sounds exactly like what it was always supposed to be. No need to resort to a big conspiracy. It’s MJ, just not high-quality, ready-to-be released MJ.

The funny thing about this whole controversy, of course, is that if those 12 Cascio vocals had never been released, they would already be legendary among fans; we’d be clamouring for them to be released, we’d be imagining they’re amazing, we’d be angry at the Estate for saying they’re not ready for release. And whey they were finally released, we’d convince ourselves they’re great, and would have been classics had MJ lived to finish them.
 
Chamife said:
I also noticed that. It's like he's afraid of empty spaces with only music, as if the song needs to be spiced up by humming a melody. It's sounds a bit of too much 'decorating' the song. It's annoying and unneccesary...*shrugs*.Did Michael do that too? I never noticed it?
Click to expand...
Well, Michael was an artist who understood the beauty of "let it simmer. Let it bathe in the moonlight."He's also the songwriter who was daring enough to introduce his song with sound of a music box, car horns, etc. He knew when to turn sound into music and how to let music shine. The way he layered his song is intriguing, not pretentious.
 
kreen;3572275 said:
Yep, it sounds like MJ, with Porte basically replacing him on the chorus. It's not a good MJ vocal, though, and it sounds like it was recorded in a basement, by amateurs, just for fun, and was never meant to be released. It also sounds like it was overproduced to make it releasable. And it sounds like MJ wasn’t exactly at the top of his form vocally or otherwise when he recorded those vocals in 2007.Basically, it sounds exactly like what it was always supposed to be. No need to resort to a big conspiracy. It’s MJ, just not high-quality, ready-to-be released MJ.The funny thing about this whole controversy, of course, is that if those 12 Cascio vocals had never been released, they would already be legendary among fans; we’d be clamouring for them to be released, we’d be imagining they’re amazing, we’d be angry at the Estate for saying they’re not ready for release. And whey they were finally released, we’d convince ourselves they’re great, and would have been classics had MJ lived to finish them.
Click to expand...
Or, they can just release the Cascio demos the way they were without processing. But, will they?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET;3572195 said:
Don't you find that the first two three notes on Burn 2 Nite are the same as Runner Up, except that in B2N you just hear whispering "dah, dah" and in Runner up "Malachi, Malachi".

Regarding the humming style, it is true, it's another mark of Jason Malachi. The first thing Malachi does in for example "How I do" is humming.
Click to expand...

Come on man. Burn Tonight is a poppish, formulaic, latin-flavored song, so of course there are going to be slight similarities with other songs of the same genre. “But both songs feature humming!” You guys crack me up… :)
 
kreen;3572275 said:
Yep, it sounds like MJ, with Porte basically replacing him on the chorus. It's not a good MJ vocal, though, and it sounds like it was recorded in a basement, by amateurs, just for fun, and was never meant to be released. It also sounds like it was overproduced to make it releasable. And it sounds like MJ wasn’t exactly at the top of his form vocally or otherwise when he recorded those vocals in 2007.

Basically, it sounds exactly like what it was always supposed to be. No need to resort to a big conspiracy. It’s MJ, just not high-quality, ready-to-be released MJ.

The funny thing about this whole controversy, of course, is that if those 12 Cascio vocals had never been released, they would already be legendary among fans; we’d be clamouring for them to be released, we’d be imagining they’re amazing, we’d be angry at the Estate for saying they’re not ready for release. And whey they were finally released, we’d convince ourselves they’re great, and would have been classics had MJ lived to finish them.
Click to expand...

"Whatzupwithu" is for fun.

"Yeah" is for fun.

"Upside down" live with Diana Ross was without warming up his voice.

"Water" (in This Is It) was for fun.

"Dangerous" was overprocessed.

"2000 Watts" was overprocessed.

"Jam" ad-libs on the video with Michael Jordan was for fun.

"Who Is It" on Oprah's interview was without warming up his voice and outside a studio.

And the list goes down. All those examples lead back to the same voice. But the one I hear on Burn 2 Nite does not match at all to any of these above sited examples.

Kreen, have you just read how many arguments you have used in order to "hear" MJ, while in all of the above sited examples, Michael did it either for fun or without warming up his voice or outside a studio environment, yet the voice is the same same as what you hear on a studio album such as BAD or DANGEROUS or any other studio album?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET;3572292 said:
"Whatzupwithu" is for fun.

"Yeah" is for fun.

"Upside down" live with Diana Ross was without warming up his voice.

"Water" (in This Is It) was for fun.

"Dangerous" was overprocessed.

"2000 Watts" was overprocessed.

"Jam" ad-libs on the video with Michael Jordan was for fun.

"Who Is It" on Oprah's interview was without warming up his voice and outside a studio.

And the list goes down. All those examples lead back to the same voice. But the one I hear on Burn 2 Nite does not match at all to any of these above sited examples.

Kreen, have you just read how many arguments you have used in order to "hear" MJ, while in all of the above sited examples, Michael did it either for fun or without warming up his voice or outside a studio environment, yet the voice is the same same as what you hear on a studio album such as BAD or DANGEROUS or any other studio album?
Click to expand...

Man, you hear MJ on all of those songs, and « don’t hear MJ » on the Cascio tracks, because you know they’re from the Cascios. Your knowledge of what those songs are, who they’re from, etc., influences what you hear. Our senses are influenced by what we think, especially if we have strongly-held beliefs and emotions.

I can assure you, because it’s human nature and you are human, that in an alternate universe, if KYHU had been presented by mistake on “Michael” as being a self-written MJ composition that he recorded, say, in 2009 in Las Vegas, you’d say you recognize MJ on the song, but don’t on “Beautiful Girl”, if THAT one was presented to you as being from the Cascios.
 
sometimes this thread amuses me

one minute "they did multiple takes with Malachi to select the most convincing ones"

the next minute "it sounds nothing like Michael"

doesn't anyone realize the oxymoron? It's either convincing therefore sounds like Michael, or it's not convincing because it doesn't sound like Michael.

the "not sound like Michael at all" effectively debunks "multiple takes with Malachi to use to convincing ones" theory as well. You can't have both. It's either -or.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Oh come on ADKI, it doesn't really sound like any of MJ's neither songs nor voice on his songs. Have you listened to:

-Yeah
-Save me
-Going back to Alabama
-You don't stand another chance
-All I do

On those songs even when nobody points it out to you you instantly recognize MJ's unique voice. They all match. How does it match with Burn 2 Nite? It's not even close.
Click to expand...
To me and many other people it does.
 
I like the "we can't have it both ways" :D As if we wanted that lol. And as if it wasn't possible to have some strong similarities on some songs and not at all on others. Go figure out why we can't hear more similarities in some parts of the songs and not in other parts. As if the tracks were clean and without copy pastes inserted in some sentences.
 
ivy said:
sometimes this thread amuses me

one minute "they did multiple takes with Malachi to select the most convincing ones"

the next minute "it sounds nothing like Michael"

doesn't anyone realize the oxymoron? It's either convincing therefore sounds like Michael, or it's not convincing because it doesn't sound like Michael.

the "not sound like Michael at all" effectively debunks "multiple takes with Malachi to use to convincing ones" theory as well. You can't have both. It's either -or.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon, just because they selected the most convincig ones (most convincing to them), doesn't mean the vocals are actually convincing. (to some fans)
 
Can someone please explain to me how the rank up system or blue, orange, and green bars work on MJJC if you can't here can you please PM me.

Thanks !
 
Guys, im pushing buttons as we speak. in making the 14th Cascio track. Ivos was amazing it inspired me.
 
Pentum said:
All the songs has empty bridges without Monster which 50 Cent recorded a rap for.

And you don't know that they would have completed the vocals if they used an impersonator.

You wouldn't know that.
Click to expand...

Willy said:
Oh c'mon, just because they selected the most convincig ones (most convincing to them), doesn't mean the vocals are actually convincing. (to some fans)
Click to expand...

In addition to what we hear or don't hear discussion, you need to consider the logic and common sense as well.

For example

We are presented with "multiple takes to select the most convincing versions" argument.

Okay.

Then how do you explain the obvious snort mistake in Breaking News? why leave that, why not replace that? How is that snort "convincing" anyone?

One thing we know that Michael did multiple takes of the vocals. I posted a quote from Bruce Swedien the other day that mentioned Michael laying multiple tracks for leads and backgrounds, 3T also mentioned that.

If the goal was to be convincing and you had a soundalike at your disposal why not do multiple tracks for both leads and backvocals? Why leave some instances a very dominant Porte vocals? Why not complete the vocals especially we know that 3T complained about incomplete vocals / lack of multiple takes as unconvincing that it's Michael? What stopped Cascio to say "sure" and invite Malachi back to his basement and come back with multiple tracks to satisfy 3T's curiosity and "convince" them ?

This not also a convincing "to them" issue. We have experts, some musicians that worked with Michael and some fans being "convinced" that it's Michael so therefore the end work has to be good to convince these group of people.

However funnily the doubters do not realize that with "Jason needed to do multiple takes to sound convincing" argument , they are effectively reducing Jason's ability to fool or convince people. If Jason was good enough to convince or fool the above group, or if his claim of "When I try to sound like Michael you can't tell" was true, he wouldn't need multiple takes to pick and choose "convincing" parts. If he's crappy to the point that he would need multiple takes and selecting the best parts and coming up a copy paste vocals, then common sense will tell you that he cannot convince such a big group that he's Michael.

and all together it's the oxymoron I'm talking about.

think the alternative: this was guide vocals and Michael sang a part here, a part there, hummed some, mumbled others, sang "na na na na" in other parts. They combined those partial guide vocals to form a "complete" vocal track by cut and paste and you have the obvious errors (such as Breaking News snort) left because they cannot re-record. As the songs weren't finished you have empty bridges, others on background vocals and filling in, repeating verses/ takes. Most of the times the simplest answer is the right one.
 
Just a question for those who think its Michael:

Do you want the songs on the next album?
 
^^ You are kidding, right? You can't possibly want those songs in a future Michael Jackson album. Or maybe you don't have such a high opinion on MJ's legacy which in that case i can't debate you.
 
Willy said:
Oh c'mon, just because they selected the most convincig ones (most convincing to them), doesn't mean the vocals are actually convincing. (to some fans)
Click to expand...
Exactly, it is not an oxymoron at all.

ivy said:
In addition to what we hear or don't hear discussion, you need to consider the logic and common sense as well.

For example

We are presented with "multiple takes to select the most convincing versions" argument.

Okay.

Then how do you explain the obvious snort mistake in Breaking News? why leave that, why not replace that? How is that snort "convincing" anyone?

One thing we know that Michael did multiple takes of the vocals. I posted a quote from Bruce Swedien the other day that mentioned Michael laying multiple tracks for leads and backgrounds, 3T also mentioned that.

If the goal was to be convincing and you had a soundalike at your disposal why not do multiple tracks for both leads and backvocals? Why leave some instances a very dominant Porte vocals? Why not complete the vocals especially we know that 3T complained about incomplete vocals / lack of multiple takes as unconvincing that it's Michael? What stopped Cascio to say "sure" and invite Malachi back to his basement and come back with multiple tracks?

This not also a convincing "to them" issue. We have experts, some musicians that worked with Michael and some fans being "convinced" that it's Michael so therefore the end work has to be good to convince these group of people.

However funnily the doubters do not realize that with "Jason needed to do multiple takes to sound convincing" argument , they are effectively reducing Jason's ability to fool or convince people. If Jason was good enough to convince or fool the above group, or if his claim of "When I try to sound like Michael you can't tell" was true, he wouldn't need multiple takes to pick and choose "convincing" parts. If he's crappy to the point that he would need multiple takes and selecting the best parts and coming up a copy paste vocals, then common sense will tell you that he cannot convince such a big group that he's Michael.

and all together it's the oxymoron I'm talking about.

think the alternative: this was guide vocals and Michael sang a part here, a part there, hummed some, mumbled others, sang "na na na na" in other parts. They combined those partial guide vocals to form a "complete" vocal track and you have the obvious errors (such as Breaking News snort) left because they cannot re-record. Most of the times the simplest answer is the right one.
Click to expand...
Oh, now all together it is the oxymoron?

So according to your simple answer, Michael did several takes of each song, and conveniently left out a different part on each take (e.g., hummed the first verse on the first take but sang the second verse, and on the second take sang the first verse and hummed the second verse), so that it neatly could be combined into one 'complete' vocal track. Most importantly, if it was just a guide vocal, why would he record several takes anyway?

I have no idea why they left the snort in. To be honest I find it rather dumb, as it is just one extra give-away. I will happily admit that this whole affair still does not make any sense to me, I absolutely agree with you there. When I think about how these records could have ended up on a Michael Jackson album I am still baffled. What the motivations would be for Eddie Cascio to do something like this? I can only guess. I would have never thought something like this could ever happen. But I do not think that, even if you disregard everything else (the voice, the constantly changing explanations for why it sounds of, THE VOICE), your 'logical alternative' makes that much sense either.
 
Last edited:
teli-mj said:
^^ You are kidding, right? You can't possibly want those songs in a future Michael Jackson album. Or maybe you don't have such a high opinion on MJ's legacy which in that case i can't debate you.
Click to expand...
No I'm not kidding I like the Cascio songs and support them.

Update: And seriously ?
"Or maybe you don't have such a high opinion on MJ's legacy which in that case i can't debate you."
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
No I'm not kidding I like the Cascio songs and support them.
Click to expand...

What I do not really understand is that you yourself also say that the voice sounds different:
ADKIc3mAnX said:
The voice is different ? Yes a little but it's not the first time and Teddy Riley Michael's producer since 1991 explained why it happened well.
Click to expand...

And that the tracks are overproduced:
ADKIc3mAnX said:
What if in future Cascio track releases they don't over over produce them as they did with the ones we have here and they sound clear to the point anyone can hear them and say "That's MJ right there" ?

I mean I can hear MJ with no problems but I understand what your saying.
Click to expand...

So if you think that this is the case, why are you still interested in having these songs on a future album? Wouldn't you rather have songs that Teddy Riley did not have to alter the vocals of and that are not overproduced? (It's a genuine question)
 
SoCav said:
What I do not really understand is that you yourself also say that the voice sounds different:


And that the tracks are overproduced:


So if you think that this is the case, why are you still interested in having these songs on a future album? Wouldn't you rather have songs that Teddy Riley did not have to alter the vocals of and that are not overproduced? (It's a genuine question)
Click to expand...
#1 I said a while ago that the voice sounds a bit different due to the Melodyne and other programs the songs went through.

#2 Yes they were over produced.

#3 I like the Cascio tracks ever since Breaking News premiered, I love all of Michael's music he has unreleased songs that can amaze us 10 years from now just like Thriller did back in the 80's and I think that the Cascio songs if produced right can be some of them.

Michael is not here with us anymore so any music that releases now will not be like Michael left it he never thought he was going to die young no one does so it's up to his friends, producers and family to finish/release it as he would like it no one knew him more like the people he worked with.
 
In reply to Ivy's last sentence...

"Most of the time the simplest answer is the right one":



question: Why doesn't Michael sound like Michael?

answer: because it isn't.




Couldn't resist :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top