Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

I take History at AS level. One of the fundamental aspects about it is how you write an answer in the exam, and from some things I've seen in this thread as of late, I think this needs to be said. My History teacher once told me to ban the word "biased" from essays because the examiners had seen it used (and used wrongly) so much that they've gotten sick of it. So let's put the word "processing" there instead. Processing has become an umbrella term and seeing it used to justify the changes to the Cascio voice is getting pretty boring.

Secondly, he also said that merely stating your opinion (based on the sources) and then unloading a bunch of facts will not win you any favours with examiners. You have to explain WHY you think a certain way rather than saying one thing and using an umbrella term to justify it. So to the believers, I set a challenge:

"Write about how and why you hear Michael Jackson on the 12 Cascio tracks, while banning the use of the word "processing" and any deviations of it (aka, no umbrella terms). Use facts in conjunction with source details and your own (relevant) knowledge to make your case."

Us doubters go on so much about why we DON'T hear Michael, this will be a welcome change of pace.
 
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...

He recorded multiple takes of a dozen songs just for fun? Right. You simply don't understand or aren't aware of the way these songs were put together. They were recorded professionally, in a good studio setup on high quality equipment. Neither the Cascio's nor anyone else have stated that Michael was recording them just for fun. The songs were sold as complete. And if they sound so bad due to the recording environment then explain why WBSS 08 sounds fine. And this whole thing about over produced vocals is nonsense. There is a little melodyne on there. That's all.
 
Last edited:
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...

They used the ones that sounded the most convincing, which is why so many people have been fooled. However, no matter how good an attempt they made, there are those of us that can still easily recognise Jason and that is why this thread is here. There is a difference between sounding like Michael and sounding LIKE Michael.
 
Last edited:
kreen;3572322 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is highly insulting and presumptious to say the least. It has nothing to do with where the songs come from. It is because we don't hear Michael. We hear Jason Cupeta. As soons as I heard Breaking News, Monster and KYHU I knew it wasn't MJ. And that's without knowing anything about the controversy issue or giving a toss where the songs came from. So stop presuming you know how people think. The same argument could be applied to you. Because it is on an MJ record, you think they must be real. No one could possibly betray Michael right?
 
Last edited:
@Bumper, ever since you made that post with the tracks mj did as "favors", this has been driving me NUTS.

what's the name of that reggae song that mj sang backup on as a favor? it was in the 80s, around thriller time. it's a pretty awful song. but that's another good example of instant recognition in the "as a favor" tracks. does anyone know the one i'm talking about? i can't believe i don't have it and can't remember it . . . lol i swear it exists help me out guys
 
Jesta said:
I take History at AS level. One of the fundamental aspects about it is how you write an answer in the exam, and from some things I've seen in this thread as of late, I think this needs to be said. My History teacher once told me to ban the word "biased" from essays because the examiners had seen it used (and used wrongly) so much that they've gotten sick of it. So let's put the word "processing" there instead. Processing has become an umbrella term and seeing it used to justify the changes to the Cascio voice is getting pretty boring.

Secondly, he also said that merely stating your opinion (based on the sources) and then unloading a bunch of facts will not win you any favours with examiners. You have to explain WHY you think a certain way rather than saying one thing and using an umbrella term to justify it. So to the believers, I set a challenge:

"Write about how and why you hear Michael Jackson on the 12 Cascio tracks, while banning the use of the word "processing" and any deviations of it (aka, no umbrella terms). Use facts in conjunction with source details and your own (relevant) knowledge to make your case."

Us doubters go on so much about why we DON'T hear Michael, this will be a welcome change of pace.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier. Michael Jackson has a unique voice. You can clearly recognize it when he sings in the street, live, with or without warming it up, young Michael from the 70s match with the older Michael from the 00s, he just gained extra depth and bonified, but he was able to use his low voice as I already showed in The Wiz.

I posted some collaborations in which Michael appears. One immediately can notice his voice in those collaborations without even pointing it out.

Also, one can listen for example to 2300 Jackson Street song, and among all the vocalists, one can easily recognize parts in which Michael sings despite the fact that he sings with his brothers and sisters (which means genetically/biologically close).

And above all, never ever have fans mistaken Michael Jackson for another singer! Surely, many soundalikes have been mistaken for Michael, but never ever the other way round!

Despite various conditions in which Michael sang, he always sounded himself just like on any album, or single or any duet, despite the difference of a studio, street, live etc.

The supposed Michael on the Cascio tracks has

-no usual grit/husk,
-no usual timbre,
-vocally it is weak (not enough power),
-the vibrato is the same on each Cascio song (shaky), but not on each Michael's song,
-the voice seems to struggle with some notes (Water),
-some copy pastes inserted in the middle of the sentences,
-snorts,
-accent,
-pronunciation,
-exaggerated yelps and gulps,
-the hispano or beat style reminds of Malachi's catchy songs,
-lack of "dah" or hiccups or claps, or they are copy-pasted
-contrary to the collaborations Michael did with other artists, including his brothers and sisters, on the Cascio tracks it seems impossible to hear when the lead vocalist sings, when James Porte sings, when the lead vocalist sings in the background, etc = No uniqueness and clear distinctiveness in the voice
-Too many hums or aaaaahhh compared to other MJ's songs
-Too many songs in an extremely short time. Michael never did so many songs with other artists or friends. The maximum he did was two, three:
with Janet Jackson, Eddie Murphy, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, ... and here all of sudden we have 12 songs with supposed THE Michael Jackson and... James Porte (James who?).
-Extremely weak lyrics, no mumbling indicating that it's a demo ("suck the air from under me", "he was stabbed in the back, as a matter of fact", ...)

and many other odd things, but especially his timbre! It's just not Michael's timbre. I can't relate to any other song.
 
Last edited:
azsummergirl said:
@Bumper, ever since you made that post with the tracks mj did as "favors", this has been driving me NUTS.

what's the name of that reggae song that mj sang backup on as a favor? it was in the 80s, around thriller time. it's a pretty awful song. but that's another good example of instant recognition in the "as a favor" tracks. does anyone know the one i'm talking about? i can't believe i don't have it and can't remember it . . . lol i swear it exists help me out guys
Click to expand...

You mean this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Lt4c-Hnsw

It's a really funny track :D
 
azsummergirl said:
@Bumper, ever since you made that post with the tracks mj did as "favors", this has been driving me NUTS.

what's the name of that reggae song that mj sang backup on as a favor? it was in the 80s, around thriller time. it's a pretty awful song. but that's another good example of instant recognition in the "as a favor" tracks. does anyone know the one i'm talking about? i can't believe i don't have it and can't remember it . . . lol i swear it exists help me out guys
Click to expand...

this one?

[youtube]H3Lt4c-Hnsw[/youtube]
 
ivy said:
and therefore

Just because you don't like something doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad-made thing. It's just your personal taste and NOT an assessment of the quality of the work itself.
Click to expand...

Taste is subjective.

Assessment of quality is not. There are objective criteria people use to grade a product. For instance, I love the Nike t-shirt I'm wearing. But, I can't call it a better piece of clothing than an Alexander McQueen dress. My Nike t-shirt is not as well made. The craftsmanship is note here. One can't compare a machine made mass produced T-shirt to a tailored made maticoulously designed dress.

Objectively speaking, it's quite hard to say the Cascio tracks are well made and of high quality. How can we called guide vocals that are so weak and need to be augmented by others, mixed with previous recordings, proceeded and blended to be of high quality? Calling the Cascio tracks well made is similar to calling the New York Post literary enlightening.

I think it's perfectly fine to like the songs. But, some go on to say Monster is one of Michael's best effort. It's simply not true. If people make statement like that, then they better be able to back it up by citing how the vocal is superior than the vocals in Earth Song, how the composition is better than Stranger in Moscow, how the lyrics are better than They Don't Care About Us.
 
Processing didnt make the voice sound off on the cascio track, the processing if anything attempted the Michael up or complete the songs. Fill in gaps and try to confuse us. However, the vibrato convinces me even more. I just cant fathom that Michaels vibrato changed for three months....i cant wrap my head around it. Porte isnt even on the songs that much as everyone clains. He has very little lines...
 
OT: I'm bringing This Is It into Film Studies soon and I need a 3-5 minute sequence to show to the class to base on my coursework. I'm stuck between Earth Song for the quick editing in the second half, WBSS for the interlude, TDCAU for the picture-in-picture editing or Black or White for the interview segments before and after. Any thoughts? It has to be based on one of the elements of film: Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Performance or Mise En Scene.
 
James Porte vocals on cascio tracks

All i need

"nonexistant on this song"

All Right

"hold me tonight
Swear to love tonight
Gonna be allright and everythin will be just fine.


Black widow


Eh the snippets are bad quality...its hard to tell :( i give up. I dont have the time mow but ill cOme back to this
 
Jesta said:
OT: I'm bringing This Is It into Film Studies soon and I need a 3-5 minute sequence to show to the class to base on my coursework. I'm stuck between Earth Song for the quick editing in the second half, WBSS for the interlude, TDCAU for the picture-in-picture editing or Black or White for the interview segments before and after. Any thoughts? It has to be based on one of the elements of film: Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Performance or Mise En Scene.
Click to expand...

I love TII and think Kenny Ortega did an amazing job. But, frankly, TII isn't a cinema masterpiece. What's the scope of your assignment? Are you asked to discuss a contemporary film? Classic Hollywood?
 
love is magical said:
I love TII and think Kenny Ortega did an amazing job. But, frankly, TII isn't a cinema masterpiece. What's the scope of your assignment? Are you asked to discuss a contemporary film? Classic Hollywood?
Click to expand...

We're meant to look at any film sequence of 3-5 minutes long and write about how it uses a particular micro-element to create meaning. I want to do TII because of the amount of editing done to complete it. It can be any feature-length film, we weren't given restrictions as such. I don't want to do Moonwalker in case the anthology aspect of it ruins its credibility with the exam board. But I can do a documentary, hence TII came into mind. I think the right sequence could give me something to talk about. I'll think about it further.
 
I wish I can function with only six hours. I struggle to wake up every morning. I'm always late to work, which is a very bad habit of mine. :fear:

Now, turn off your computer and all the gadgets. Close your eyes. Get a nap. You need it.
 
StellaJackson said:
He recorded multiple takes of a dozen songs just for fun? Right. You simply don't understand or aren't aware of the way these songs were put together. They were recorded professionally, in a good studio setup on high quality equipment. Neither the Cascio's nor anyone else have stated that Michael was recording them just for fun. The songs were sold as complete. And if they sound so bad due to the recording environment then explain why WBSS 08 sounds fine. And this whole thing about over produced vocals is nonsense. There is a little melodyne on there. That's all.
Click to expand...
Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 08 was not recorded in the Cascio studio.
 
love is magical said:
I wish I can function with only six hours. I struggle to wake up every morning. I'm always late to work, which is a very bad habit of mine. :fear:
Click to expand...

I can mostly function, I just tend to fall asleep once I get home for a couple of hours. This time lasted a lot longer, however. Oh well, my original plan was to go to sleep at 10pm and wake up now so I could get some studying done and fully wake myself up for the day. College will prove to be interesting with me being awake for 7 hours beforehand...

Fine, I'll go to sleep for about 30 minutes. For you ;)
 
love is magical said:
Taste is subjective.

Assessment of quality is not. There are objective criteria people use to grade a product. For instance, I love the Nike t-shirt I'm wearing. But, I can't call it a better piece of clothing than an Alexander McQueen dress. My Nike t-shirt is not as well made. The craftsmanship is note here. One can't compare a machine made mass produced T-shirt to a tailored made maticoulously designed dress.

Objectively speaking, it's quite hard to say the Cascio tracks are well made and of high quality. How can we called guide vocals that are so weak and need to be augmented by others, mixed with previous recordings, proceeded and blended to be of high quality? Calling the Cascio tracks well made is similar to calling the New York Post literary enlightening.

I think it's perfectly fine to like the songs. But, some go on to say Monster is one of Michael's best effort. It's simply not true. If people make statement like that, then they better be able to back it up by citing how the vocal is superior than the vocals in Earth Song, how the composition is better than Stranger in Moscow, how the lyrics are better than They Don't Care About Us.
Click to expand...
If people say that Monster if one of Michael's best that is their opinion.
 
Billyjeanplxiv said:
James Porte vocals on cascio tracks

All i need

"nonexistant on this song"

All Right

"hold me tonight
Swear to love tonight
Gonna be allright and everythin will be just fine.


Black widow


Eh the snippets are bad quality...its hard to tell :( i give up. I dont have the time mow but ill cOme back to this
Click to expand...
Because the leaked one doesn't have it, it doesn't mean it's not on the other versions because it's leaked so how do we know it wasn't removed before the leak went out by who ever got it uploaded to the internet ?
 
Last edited:
ADKIc3mAnX said:
If people say that Monster if one of Michael's best that is their opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. But, you can't always justify your preference by saying "it's my opinion."

Like I mentioned earlier, taste is subjective. Assessment of quality is not. I can't call my cheap toy watch a meticulate timepiece, like a Cartier watch. There are objective crieria involved, like craftsmanship, design and material.

Likewise, there are objective criteria in evaluating a song. Things like the singer's technique (phrasing, breathing control) and quality of instrumentation. Listen to WBSS, see how crisp the horn session is. That's Quincy's contribution. See how tight the song is produced. Can you say the same thing to Monster?

You can always say you like Monster. But, unless you are able to talk about the reasons that make you conclude that Monster in one of MJ's best, your opinion is not going to get far. May I say you are actually doing Michael a disservice by saying a piece-together amateurish song among his best. Michael gave us masterpiece after masterpiece. From Billie Jean, to Black or White to Earth Song to Speechless. Now, some are saying a song that he had close to no involvement of is among his best? I'm not saying you can't like Monster more so than Speechless. It's your personal taste. But, if you were to tell me Monster is of higher quality VOCALLY than Speechless, then please justify it objectively (saying its my opinion is not it.)

If everyone in this world justifies what he said and did by saying "it's my opinion", this world will be chaotic.
 
love is magical said:
I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. But, you can't always justify your preference by saying "it's my opinion."

Like I mentioned earlier, taste is subjective. Assessment of quality is not. I can't call my cheap toy watch a meticulate timepiece, like a Cartier watch. There are objective crieria involved, like craftsmanship, design and material.

Likewise, there are objective criteria in evaluating a song. Things like the singer's technique (phrasing, breathing control) and quality of instrumentation. Listen to WBSS, see how crisp the horn session is. That's Quincy's contribution. See how tight the song is produced. Can you say the same thing to Monster?

You can always say you like Monster. But, unless you are able to talk about the reasons that make you conclude that Monster in one of MJ's best, your opinion is not going to get far. May I say you are actually doing Michael a disservice by saying a piece-together amateurish song among his best. Michael gave us masterpiece after masterpiece. From Billie Jean, to Black or White to Earth Song to Speechless. Now, some are saying a song that he had close to no involvement of is among his best? I'm not saying you can't like Monster more so than Speechless. It's your personal taste. But, if you were to tell me Monster is of higher quality VOCALLY than Speechless, then please justify it objectively (saying its my opinion is not it.)

If everyone in this world justifies what he said and did by saying "it's my opinion", this world will be chaotic.
Click to expand...
I know but you said "I think it's perfectly fine to like the songs. But, some go on to say Monster is one of Michael's best effort. It's simply not true." and by you saying it's not true that is one of the things that spark a believer/doubter war.
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 08 was not recorded in the Cascio studio.
Click to expand...

And how do you know that for a fact? Considering it was recorded in late 07, and Anjelikson is credited as producer, I would say more likely than not it was. Also note that Akon was not with Michael when he recorded his parts: see Thriller 25 EPK. Unless you have some evidence to suggest otherwise?
 
StellaJackson said:
And how do you know that for a fact? Considering it was recorded in late 07, and Anjelikson is credited as producer, I would say more likely than not it was. Unless you have some evidence to suggest otherwise?
Click to expand...
Because wasn't it recorded in Vegas ?

And because it's credited as producer it does not mean it's where the vocals were recorded before Ivy explained it.
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Because wasn't it recorded in Vegas ?

And because it's credited as producer it does not mean it's where the vocals were recorded before Ivy explained it.
Click to expand...

What's your source for it being recorded in Vegas? And no it doesnt't mean the vocals were recorded there, but as Michael was staying there at the time period during which they were recorded, and he never pulled Eddie out to anywhere else to work with him on anything, then is most likely that they were recorded there, as were the additional keyboard parts on For All Time.
 
StellaJackson said:
What's your source for it being recorded in Vegas? And no it doesnt't mean the vocals were recorded there, but as Michael was staying there at the time period during which they were recorded, and he never pulled Eddie out to anywhere else to work with him on anything, then is most likely that they were recorded there, as were the additional keyboard parts on For All Time.
Click to expand...
Wait was Michael living with the Cascio's in November 2007 ?

Update: Eddie said that "Michael came in to work in early 07" in his Oprah interview and on the Thriller booklet the Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' is credited as recorded in November 2007.

So Michael was not in the Cascio home when Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' was recorded according to the Thriller booket and in late 07 he was with Jessie Jackson in Vegas right ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top