Michael - The Great Album Debate

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Like I said, comparing them with other songs isn't what I do. But in that way, I sort of feel/hear it in his falsetto like Gone too soon or, as you mentioned, Scared Of The Moon. Only, this is a demo/guide vocal.
The reason why it's off key? Well, MJ was also only human and even he wasn't perfect @ singing at every moment. And I base that on live performances etc. I hear the same voice.

When I hear MJ (his voice) I just know it. And I got the same feeling that I hear MJ for 100% on Fall In Love. =)

The "I just know it" must have a clear benchmark to draw such a conclusion. I don't really see a clear benchmark in your reply. If there's no benchmark, it'd be the same as saying "I just know it that theree are ghosts around me." Something must indicate the reasons for believing or hearing something.

 

[IvoDT]

Well then, sorry. Can't make it clearer than this. I hear MJ just as much as I do in Gone Too Soon or whatever song.

But I'll be honest. The only one that ever made me doubt a little bit was Water. Especially the end. =)

 

[kreen]

The "I just know it" must have a clear benchmark to draw such a conclusion. I don't really see a clear benchmark in your reply. If there's no benchmark, it'd be the same as saying "I just know it that theree are ghosts around me." Something must indicate the reasons for believing or hearing something.

Bumper, it seems to me you want to believe the Cascio tracks are real, but can't. Maybe I can help you.

According to the hoax theory, Eddie Cascio hired an impersonator for his 12 tracks. But why did he do that? He already had a singer who could sing the tracks : James Porte. So why did he need to hire somebody else? Because James Porte doesn't sound like MJ. So Eddie had to hire an MJ soundalike, and in fact, he did find one, because his tracks were bought by the Estate, and 3 of them are now on an official MJ product.

Therefore, whoever sings the Cascio songs does sound like MJ. The Cascio singer's vocals are incredibly similar to MJ's. Otherwise, there would be no hoax, no fraud, and no "Great Album Debate".

But you might say, "why is it then my ears tell me the singer sounds nothing like MJ?" It's because of psychology. As you listen to those songs, you listen to them in a way you've never listened to any other MJ song before : you're picturing the singer as an impersonator. That's why your ears hear what you say they hear.

Just yesterday actually, I had a long drive in the car, and I listened to Invincible twice, and to "Michael" once. And it just struck me once again how the whole debate we've been having here is based on subjective, psychological impressions. If the "Michael" songs had been on Invincible, we would have never questioned them. But on the other hand, if the Invincible songs had been on "Michael", we would have found them suspicious. Just as an example, what's with MJ singing the word "lost" as if it's pronounced "low-st" in "You are my life"? And later in the song, he sings the exact same word correctly. Can you imagine, if that song had been a Cascio song, how much the pro-fake people would make of such a weird, incorrect prononciation of a simple word?

Or what about "Whatever Happens"? In the final ad-libs, and especially the very last "YEEAHH!", MJ's voice is SO low, so guttural, that it really sounds nothing like anything he's ever sang. Listening to those ad-libs, I'm amazed it's MJ at all.

So in the end, it's all psychological. Bumper, next time you listen to the Cascio tracks, picture MJ singing them, and imagine them as Invincible outtakes. You'll soon hear MJ again. But be prepared -- it ain't top-quality MJ. More like tired MJ in his pyjamas phoning it in.

 

[Lucilla]

deleted

 

[love is magical]

Bumper, it seems to me you want to believe the Cascio tracks are real, but can't. Maybe I can help you.According to the hoax theory, Eddie Cascio hired an impersonator for his 12 tracks. But why did he do that? He already had a singer who could sing the tracks : James Porte. So why did he need to hire somebody else? Because James Porte doesn't sound like MJ. So Eddie had to hire an MJ soundalike, and in fact, he did find one, because his tracks were bought by the Estate, and 3 of them are now on an official MJ product.Therefore, whoever sings the Cascio songs does sound like MJ. The Cascio singer's vocals are incredibly similar to MJ's. Otherwise, there would be no hoax, no fraud, and no "Great Album Debate".But you might say, "why is it then my ears tell me the singer sounds nothing like MJ?" It's because of psychology. As you listen to those songs, you listen to them in a way you've never listened to any other MJ song before : you're picturing the singer as an impersonator. That's why your ears hear what you say they hear.Just yesterday actually, I had a long drive in the car, and I listened to Invincible twice, and to "Michael" once. And it just struck me once again how the whole debate we've been having here is based on subjective, psychological impressions. If the "Michael" songs had been on Invincible, we would have never questioned them. But on the other hand, if the Invincible songs had been on "Michael", we would have found them suspicious. Just as an example, what's with MJ singing the word "lost" as if it's pronounced "low-st" in "You are my life"? And later in the song, he sings the exact same word correctly. Can you imagine, if that song had been a Cascio song, how much the pro-fake people would make of such a weird, incorrect prononciation of a simple word?Or what about "Whatever Happens"? In the final ad-libs, and especially the very last "YEEAHH!", MJ's voice is SO low, so guttural, that it really sounds nothing like anything he's ever sang. Listening to those ad-libs, I'm amazed it's MJ at all.So in the end, it's all psychological. Bumper, next time you listen to the Cascio tracks, picture MJ singing them, and imagine them as Invincible outtakes. You'll soon hear MJ again. But be prepared -- it ain't top-quality MJ. More like tired MJ in his pyjamas phoning it in.

Exactly how many times Bumper has to declare that he didn't have a slightest idea who Eddie Cascio is the first time he heard Breaking News. Stop assuming. Start understanding. He didn't listen with a mindset that it's an impersonator singing. As a matter of fact, I highly doubt the majority of people who thought it was not Michael they are hearing had this impersonator image in their minds when they listened to the first streaming of Breaking News. Why would people chose to have one fewer MJ song they could enjoy? Don't you remember people were anxiously waiting for the first MJ song in years?Your psychological analysis isn't as logical as it sounds.

 

[pushukrystian]

Bumper, it seems to me you want to believe the Cascio tracks are real, but can't. Maybe I can help you.

According to the hoax theory, Eddie Cascio hired an impersonator for his 12 tracks. But why did he do that? He already had a singer who could sing the tracks : James Porte. So why did he need to hire somebody else? Because James Porte doesn't sound like MJ. So Eddie had to hire an MJ soundalike, and in fact, he did find one, because his tracks were bought by the Estate, and 3 of them are now on an official MJ product.

Therefore, whoever sings the Cascio songs does sound like MJ. The Cascio singer's vocals are incredibly similar to MJ's. Otherwise, there would be no hoax, no fraud, and no "Great Album Debate".

But you might say, "why is it then my ears tell me the singer sounds nothing like MJ?" It's because of psychology. As you listen to those songs, you listen to them in a way you've never listened to any other MJ song before : you're picturing the singer as an impersonator. That's why your ears hear what you say they hear.

Just yesterday actually, I had a long drive in the car, and I listened to Invincible twice, and to "Michael" once. And it just struck me once again how the whole debate we've been having here is based on subjective, psychological impressions. If the "Michael" songs had been on Invincible, we would have never questioned them. But on the other hand, if the Invincible songs had been on "Michael", we would have found them suspicious. Just as an example, what's with MJ singing the word "lost" as if it's pronounced "low-st" in "You are my life"? And later in the song, he sings the exact same word correctly. Can you imagine, if that song had been a Cascio song, how much the pro-fake people would make of such a weird, incorrect prononciation of a simple word?

Or what about "Whatever Happens"? In the final ad-libs, and especially the very last "YEEAHH!", MJ's voice is SO low, so guttural, that it really sounds nothing like anything he's ever sang. Listening to those ad-libs, I'm amazed it's MJ at all.

So in the end, it's all psychological. Bumper, next time you listen to the Cascio tracks, picture MJ singing them, and imagine them as Invincible outtakes. You'll soon hear MJ again. But be prepared -- it ain't top-quality MJ. More like tired MJ in his pyjamas phoning it in.

Absolutely great post!! I think the same way.

 

[love is magical]

Kreen's theory works both ways. I could say something like the following:

But you might say, "why is it then my ears tell me the singer sounds clearly like MJ?" It's because of psychology. As you listen to those songs, you listen to them in a way you've never listened to any other MJ song before : you're picturing the singer as MJ in his PJ's dragging himself through the recording. You know. He's sick. He's tired. He's homeless. He's trying to pay back the people who fed him and housed him with his voice. That's why your ears hear what you say they hear.

Now, tell me, what would you feel if you hear such theory?

The believers always ask people to respect their opinions. Now, may I ask you to please follow your own advice? Just respect that the doubters do not hear Michael. Instead of ASSUMING that every doubter must have his/her mind brainwashed into believing they are hearing an impersonator.

I find the above assumptions highly insulting. Why? Becasue it implies that doubters find joy in not hearing MJ. We don't. Again, why would we want to punish ourselves by forcing ourselves to not hearing Michael?

As a matter of fact, I believe I have openly said I don't believe it's Jason Malachi in the Cascio tracks. I don't even think Eddie is a bad person. Inside my heart, I think no parent would name his new born to a man he intentionally betrayed. So, I actually forced myself to picture Michael in a basement singing. But, it doesn't work. The vocals on the Cascio tracks are just too damn weak. I absolutely disagree that the Cascio tracks are of the same level of quality of any song in Invincible.

Even if the songs are proven to be authentic, all I can say is that they are just too incomplete to be commercially released. And, why would I blame myself for not hearing Michael when the quality is so bad? Why would I blame any doubter? Why would I assume it must be this and that? We are all victims here.

 

[Chamife]

@Kreen

That example you mentioned about the word 'lost' in YAML:

I only hear his familiar 's' (that little lisp) in the word lost, which I don't hear on the Cascio songs.

And if there were any doubts about his pronouncation of that word; in the end of the song, from 3.30-4.08 all doubts are taken away immediately. This is wat I want to hear in the Cascio songs and unfortunately it's missing. That kind of musicality.

[youtube]x_15tALSO5M[/youtube]

 

[Arklove]

This debate will be never ending..We all know that...Some believers have turned into doubters, some people haven't decided..Some have flip flopped back and forth....Some don't hear Michael, but believe it must be him because the people involved would never do something like commit fraud, or betray Michael....Some doubters will never believe it's Michael...Personally, I'm not saying those tracks are 100% Jason Malachi...I do, however, hear all Jason's characteristics and none of Michael's...Or, if they're not Jason's characteristics, then whose are they? Cuz they don't have Michael's characteristics featured in every single genuine MJ song we've ever heard...If they did, believers AND doubters alike would be able to point out these trademarks...But after a year...we haven't seen such a thing....

So to the believers - I too agree that it's futile to point out where you hear Michael on the songs because, well, let's face it - you CAN'T...don't worry, the doubters can't either...

When I first heard BN, I was very confused...I was even insulted that people would call it 'fake'...I thought it was too soon to say that and I didn't believe that anyone would actually do something like that...I would listen over and over again, TRYING to hear Michael....I had heard briefly that the Jackon's were saying that the songs were fake...I immediately dismissed it...For a few reasons: 1) because WHY would they do something as serious as putting fake songs on an MJ record? 2) because I wanted to listen for myself before I'd believe the songs were fake...what someone says about a song is not gonna influence what I hear...Who was there when the tracks were recorded? Eddie? The person who is singing on the tracks? Who else? Not the numerous people named in the statement, that's for sure...Not a forensic musicologist...They all weren't there...So, I'm sorry, they have just as much credibility as any MJ fan, because none of us were there...

Eddie Cascio? Who? I didn't hear a thing about him before the songs were released...I barely even knew who Jason Malachi was before all of this...I wasn't familiar with his voice, his music, or anything...I firmly believed the songs WERE NOT MJ before I even heard any audio comparisons...I wanted to hear Michael, but I just didn't..and still don't...I've said it several times, I really don't care WHO is singing on those tracks...I just care that I don't hear Michael..and not just because I don't 'feel' it's him...I, as well as many other doubters have pointed out specifically the characteristics that are missing...These are facts..Michael had certain unique nuances and trademarks that are in each and every single one of his songs..They can't be denied!...So, I find it highly insulting that we get the same posts over and over again from those who 'assume' we think it isn't Michael because they're Cascio songs, (what the hell does that have to do with anything??) or we were influenced by the tweets by the Jacksons....It's ridiculous, insulting, and a very low blow...It shows no understanding whatsoever...

 

[love is magical]

The believers pretend to be the sober one, or at least some of them act like they know the whole truth. However, it seems they forget they know just as much as the rest of us. They can't show any concrete proof either. Yet, they dare to make all sorts of assumptions on the doubters and make the doubters look like a bunch of lost sheep that need guidance. Doesn't matter how many times some doubters declared that they knew nothing about the Cascio tracks controversy beforehand. They even pretend to know what the doubters' ears hear better than the doubters themselves.

When the doubters asked "where you hear Michael?" what's your benchmark?" The response is "Dumb question." Yeah... very respectful...

 

[kreen]

If there’s one thing the doubters should NOT feel when reading my posts, it’s insulted, because everything I say about you guys applies to me also! We are all in the same boat: we all tend to trust our senses, form an opinion, and then stick to it. And our assumptions always influence what we think we see or hear.

In fact, like I’ve said in previous posts, I too believed the songs were fake – at first. I remember discussing this with a colleague of mine the very first day Breaking News was streamed: I remember telling him, “this is the greatest hoax in the history of pop music, and they’ll have to withdraw all of the copies of the album from the stores.” My reaction was based on how different and disappointing the vocals on Breaking News were, compounded by the use of the third person in the lyrics : all of those elements made the vocals so strange to our ears that we all had a sort of “eeech” moment.

But at that point, some people took different paths. I realized that the oddness of the vocals could easily be explained by the official theory. I realized that there was no way the conspiracy or hoax I had first believed in – in my emotion and confusion – could actually be thought of, let alone pulled off and maintained. And listening to the vocals again, I realized my initial impression had been overly negative: first impressions are not always fair.

And now, a year after the release – with no lawsuits in sight, and with the album still on the shelf, and with “Monster” being used on new products – it’s time more than ever to lay to rest this whole negative episode of MJ fandom. And especially, if some of you have deprived yourselves from buying and enjoying the “Michael” album, embrace it now: it’s the closest we’ve had for ten years to a new “MJ” album. Put it in its rightful place in MJ’s discography. “Monster” is really a good track, with a couple of great hooks. And KYHU, according to Tricky Stewart, is a song MJ wrote himself. “Michael” is a good album, and I’m glad it’s been released.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

All i know is that i dont hear Michael. I thought i did, and i tried to but in the end i cant.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

If there’s one thing the doubters should NOT feel when reading my posts, it’s insulted, because everything I say about you guys applies to me also! We are all in the same boat: we all tend to trust our senses, form an opinion, and then stick to it. And our assumptions always influence what we think we see or hear.

In fact, like I’ve said in previous posts, I too believed the songs were fake – at first. I remember discussing this with a colleague of mine the very first day Breaking News was streamed: I remember telling him, “this is the greatest hoax in the history of pop music, and they’ll have to withdraw all of the copies of the album from the stores.” My reaction was based on how different and disappointing the vocals on Breaking News were, compounded by the use of the third person in the lyrics : all of those elements made the vocals so strange to our ears that we all had a sort of “eeech” moment.

But at that point, some people took different paths. I realized that the oddness of the vocals could easily be explained by the official theory. I realized that there was no way the conspiracy or hoax I had first believed in – in my emotion and confusion – could actually be thought of, let alone pulled off and maintained. And listening to the vocals again, I realized my initial impression had been overly negative: first impressions are not always fair.

And now, a year after the release – with no lawsuits in sight, and with the album still on the shelf, and with “Monster” being used on new products – it’s time more than ever to lay to rest this whole negative episode of MJ fandom. And especially, if some of you have deprived yourselves from buying and enjoying the “Michael” album, embrace it now: it’s the closest we’ve had for ten years to a new “MJ” album. Put it in its rightful place in MJ’s discography. “Monster” is really a good track, with a couple of great hooks. And KYHU, according to Tricky Stewart, is a song MJ wrote himself. “Michael” is a good album, and I’m glad it’s been released.

Michael wrote KYHU? can you provide and link or quote?

 

[Arklove]

^^ @kreen....All you've said is fine in theory....And I agree with a lot of it...HOWEVER...it doesn't influence what I hear! And it shouldn't influence what you hear either! So please...speak for yourself...All of what you said doesn't apply to EVERYONE...It's your assumptions that cannot be taken seriously...Otherwise, I understand what you're trying to say....

Legal this, legal that...musicologist this and that....Producers say this and that...Fine...It's all fluff! It doesn't PROVE that it's Michael...It proves 'officially' that it's Michael...It doesn't satisfy the senses....Shouldn't it? It's his vocals! It's his music! Does this influence what we hear? To some yes, to some no...And that's why a lot of us are still here...

So what... you thought the songs were fake in the beginning and now you don't? Why? What influenced you? Did you just throw in the towel and say, 'Well, they MUST be real cuz I don't believe in any conspiracy is happening here?'...Or do you actually HEAR Michael now?

I bought the album on the day of release, and I'm sorry, but I cannot 'enjoy' the album as a whole because if it IS Michael, then he sounds like a processed robot on songs that shouldn't have been released in the first place...I can't enjoy 'Michael's' latest release when the songs are highly insulting to his discography and previous work. The voice is questionable to say the least! How can that possibly be enjoyed? Monster is catchy, yes, but so what? I don't care for unreleased stuff for my own selfish reasons...they have to be respected and treated with dignity and pride...Not just for profit...I respect Michael as an artist...The work that's been done on these songs weren't, however, treated with respect....I'm not gonna scoop up every last crumb of 'Michael's' work just because I'm a selfish fan who wants more and more and more (I'm speaking for MYSELF)...

Michael took, what? 7 years before he decided to release Earth Song? Why is that? Because he wasn't satisfied until it's exactly what he wanted....We, as fans, shouldn't settle for anything less...Yes, I KNOW that posthumous releases aren't gonna follow this mantra....However, if the song cannot even come CLOSE to this, then why release it? Maybe some don't care for Michael's legacy...I, however, do....

Yes, this issue has split the fanbase, but that's actually not my priority in this whole debacle...It's the fact that Michael's music was torn to shreds is the issue....I don't care about MYSELF...I care about Michael and his legacy....Either way, the songs were treated despicably and Michael is not here himself to see this, or defend it, or to refute it or anything...It was all done behind his back and that's what my issue is...

 

[Jesta]

I can't stress this enough, this is NOT a debate as to whether you like these songs. No-one should let their like/dislike of these songs affect their judgement when it comes to the vocals of these songs. In this debate, the catchiness or likeability of these songs is irrelevant.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

The songs are produced nice, they are catchy and likable. But the question of is it really mike lingers.

 

[kreen]

Michael wrote KYHU? can you provide and link or quote?

I think it’s from the « Michael » EPK, and also from an interview done around the time of the release.

But I don’t treat his word as gospel on this matter, because some producers tend to use the word “to write” and the widest sense possible; basically, they always say the singer “wrote” the songs, even when an army of songwriters actually did the work.

But that’s what he did say.

 

[teli-mj]

I was reading some time ago the thread about Breaking News. You could see the excitement of the fans while waiting for the song to be trasmitted for the first time on the MJ official site. When they had finally hear the song, most of them were talking about not being MJ the one singing on the song.

Now,from what i understand, at that point no one was negative towards the Cascio nor biased against them. Yet, they didn't hear Mike on the songs. That was their first reaction. They weren't brainwashed by anything. It wasn't the psycology of the mass that made them say that the song was not real MJ. It was what they were hearing. They were trying to visualise MJ singing and i'm sure they did but they simply didn't hear him.

 

[love is magical]

If there’s one thing the doubters should NOT feel when reading my posts, it’s insulted, because everything I say about you guys applies to me also! We are all in the same boat: we all tend to trust our senses, form an opinion, and then stick to it. And our assumptions always influence what we think we see or hear.

In fact, like I’ve said in previous posts, I too believed the songs were fake – at first. I remember discussing this with a colleague of mine the very first day Breaking News was streamed: I remember telling him, “this is the greatest hoax in the history of pop music, and they’ll have to withdraw all of the copies of the album from the stores.” My reaction was based on how different and disappointing the vocals on Breaking News were, compounded by the use of the third person in the lyrics : all of those elements made the vocals so strange to our ears that we all had a sort of “eeech” moment.

But at that point, some people took different paths. I realized that the oddness of the vocals could easily be explained by the official theory. I realized that there was no way the conspiracy or hoax I had first believed in – in my emotion and confusion – could actually be thought of, let alone pulled off and maintained. And listening to the vocals again, I realized my initial impression had been overly negative: first impressions are not always fair.

And now, a year after the release – with no lawsuits in sight, and with the album still on the shelf, and with “Monster” being used on new products – it’s time more than ever to lay to rest this whole negative episode of MJ fandom. And especially, if some of you have deprived yourselves from buying and enjoying the “Michael” album, embrace it now: it’s the closest we’ve had for ten years to a new “MJ” album. Put it in its rightful place in MJ’s discography. “Monster” is really a good track, with a couple of great hooks. And KYHU, according to Tricky Stewart, is a song MJ wrote himself. “Michael” is a good album, and I’m glad it’s been released.

After making assumptions for me (that I picture an impersonator behind the mic while listening to the songs), now you are telling me what I SHOULD or SHOULD NOT feel. Seriously, give me a break. The fact is I'm offended by your post.

Sometimes, I'm surprised to see how the logical and sober one tend to be the more contradictive one. First, you mentioned you thought Breaking News is not authentic because of the disappointing vocals. Then, you went on to say the Cascio tracks are good. Vocals are disappointing but the tracks are good. Okay then, whatever makes you happy.

If you have made up your mind and fully enjoy the Cascio tracks, then why you subject yourself to such torture here? Because you want to show the doubters the "turth" and lead all the lost sheep to the right path? There is no need to tell us what we should or should not do. If it's time for this debate to come to an end, this thread will die by itself just like 99% of threads in this forum. Once people have no more to add and are nog longer interested in the topic, the thread will become inactive.

Don't blame the doubters for the so-caleed "negative episode" of MJ fandom. Blame the people who decided to release sub-par materials on an official MJ album.

 

[SoCav]

Bumper, it seems to me you want to believe the Cascio tracks are real, but can't. Maybe I can help you.

According to the hoax theory, Eddie Cascio hired an impersonator for his 12 tracks. But why did he do that? He already had a singer who could sing the tracks : James Porte. So why did he need to hire somebody else? Because James Porte doesn't sound like MJ. So Eddie had to hire an MJ soundalike, and in fact, he did find one, because his tracks were bought by the Estate, and 3 of them are now on an official MJ product.

Therefore, whoever sings the Cascio songs does sound like MJ. The Cascio singer's vocals are incredibly similar to MJ's. Otherwise, there would be no hoax, no fraud, and no "Great Album Debate".

The thing is that they apparently sound like MJ to one group of people. In that sense, yes, the person who sings the Cascio songs must sound like MJ. But to another group of people, myself included, they never sounded anything like Michael. Michael Jackson's voice and the Cascio singer's voice (Jason Malachi, imo) are only similar on the surface, and if you know both Michael's and Jason Malachi's voice, it is easy to hear the difference (yes, in my opinion).

But you might say, "why is it then my ears tell me the singer sounds nothing like MJ?" It's because of psychology. As you listen to those songs, you listen to them in a way you've never listened to any other MJ song before : you're picturing the singer as an impersonator. That's why your ears hear what you say they hear.

Can you stop presenting your assumptions like they are facts? When I first listened to this song, I was fully under the impression that I was going to listen to MJ, not some impersonator. I was incredibly excited on the days preceding the streaming of Breaking News. I was super excited to hear a new Michael Jackson song, the song that was going to kick start a whole new album full of new songs. I had actually been enthusiastically listening to that already streamed 40 second snippet of Breaking News on repeat (boy do I feel like an ass for doing that now). That excitement stopped as soon as I heard the lead singer's voice. I never once doubted whether this was Michael or not. To me it was obvious that it was not.

Besides, the opposite argument can also be easily made: that you are picturing Michael singing these songs and that that's why you cannot recognize that it is an impersonator.

Just yesterday actually, I had a long drive in the car, and I listened to Invincible twice, and to "Michael" once. And it just struck me once again how the whole debate we've been having here is based on subjective, psychological impressions. If the "Michael" songs had been on Invincible, we would have never questioned them. But on the other hand, if the Invincible songs had been on "Michael", we would have found them suspicious. Just as an example, what's with MJ singing the word "lost" as if it's pronounced "low-st" in "You are my life"? And later in the song, he sings the exact same word correctly. Can you imagine, if that song had been a Cascio song, how much the pro-fake people would make of such a weird, incorrect prononciation of a simple word?

Well no, not really, because all the songs on Invincible sound like Michael (no, I never thought 2000 watts or Privacy sounded like 'someone else was singing'). You make it seem as if people had a bias against the Cascio tracks prior to listening to them. Our dislike of those tracks was the result of us not hearing Michael on those songs, not the cause.

Or what about "Whatever Happens"? In the final ad-libs, and especially the very last "YEEAHH!", MJ's voice is SO low, so guttural, that it really sounds nothing like anything he's ever sang. Listening to those ad-libs, I'm amazed it's MJ at all.

I guess we have a different opinion there. To me it does not sound that different from other things Michael has done (and certainly not to the extent that I am amazed it is even him).

So in the end, it's all psychological. Bumper, next time you listen to the Cascio tracks, picture MJ singing them, and imagine them as Invincible outtakes. You'll soon hear MJ again. But be prepared -- it ain't top-quality MJ. More like tired MJ in his pyjamas phoning it in.

Again, we have several demos of MJ and even recordings of him just singing something on the fly (Smile in Living With Michael Jackson, for instance, or Michael singing songs to Liz Taylor over the phone). On In The Back Michael is "daa da-da-da-da daa"-ing his way through most of the song. All situations in which we did not get 'top-quality MJ'. Yet, it still sounded like MJ.

 

[Chamife]

It's not just different vocals. Michael's spirit isn't in these tracks. If it were only 'strange' or 'odd' vocals, that didn't sound like him, that would not be the main reason for me to believe it's not him. It's not only his voice that I liked.

The songs are sung too scholarly IMO. A lot of singers could sing them that way, because they miss Michael's musicality, which was greater then most other artists.

Can't emphasize enough that Michael's soul is missing. And that was what made Michael...Michael.

And yes, I also expected to hear Michael when I sat in front of my comp. when 'Breaking News' premiered. But I felt nothing, zilch, yada. And that was enough for me to be put off by these songs instantly.

 

[WhoIsIt89]

All this talk of rather MJ is on Fall In Love or not is breaking my heart and tearing me apart.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Bumper, it seems to me you want to believe the Cascio tracks are real, but can't. Maybe I can help you.

Thanks, but there is a difference between "believe" and "hear". When you want to make me believe something I have impression you wanna brainwash me to believe the contrary to what I actually hear.

According to the hoax theory, Eddie Cascio hired an impersonator for his 12 tracks. But why did he do that? He already had a singer who could sing the tracks : James Porte. So why did he need to hire somebody else? Because James Porte doesn't sound like MJ. So Eddie had to hire an MJ soundalike, and in fact, he did find one, because his tracks were bought by the Estate, and 3 of them are now on an official MJ product.

Therefore, whoever sings the Cascio songs does sound like MJ. The Cascio singer's vocals are incredibly similar to MJ's. Otherwise, there would be no hoax, no fraud, and no "Great Album Debate".

But you might say, "why is it then my ears tell me the singer sounds nothing like MJ?" It's because of psychology. As you listen to those songs, you listen to them in a way you've never listened to any other MJ song before : you're picturing the singer as an impersonator. That's why your ears hear what you say they hear.

How does this apply when I heard them before any controversy and before I even knew who the Cascios were? My cringe reaction preceded the controversy and any hoax theory.

Just yesterday actually, I had a long drive in the car, and I listened to Invincible twice, and to "Michael" once. And it just struck me once again how the whole debate we've been having here is based on subjective, psychological impressions. If the "Michael" songs had been on Invincible, we would have never questioned them. But on the other hand, if the Invincible songs had been on "Michael", we would have found them suspicious. Just as an example, what's with MJ singing the word "lost" as if it's pronounced "low-st" in "You are my life"? And later in the song, he sings the exact same word correctly. Can you imagine, if that song had been a Cascio song, how much the pro-fake people would make of such a weird, incorrect prononciation of a simple word?

Are you saying that for example George W. Bush's Texan accent is also a psychological thing, that people don't have their own accent, that's subjective? Michael can change his accent to fit the tone of the music, but his timbre won't change and he won't snort.

Or what about "Whatever Happens"? In the final ad-libs, and especially the very last "YEEAHH!", MJ's voice is SO low, so guttural, that it really sounds nothing like anything he's ever sang. Listening to those ad-libs, I'm amazed it's MJ at all.

Never? How about Who Is It adlibs starting from 4:21 till the end of the song. No comment. Just listen before saying that you can't relate it to anything you heard before.

[youtube]7c8YIhF-Xsk[/youtube]

So in the end, it's all psychological. Bumper, next time you listen to the Cascio tracks, picture MJ singing them, and imagine them as Invincible outtakes. You'll soon hear MJ again. But be prepared -- it ain't top-quality MJ. More like tired MJ in his pyjamas phoning it in.

That's what I did before hearing the tracks until I heard the voice. But ok, you listen to MJ with psychological approach, and I'll listen to him with my mainstream organs when it comes to music: ears.

 

[Calisto]

So does anyone think jm acount was hacked?

It's not clear at the moment.

Some believe "Worldwide" has been in control of Jason Malachi's account for the past 12 months. However, aside from now, the last time somebody actually logged into the singer's screen name was over 22 months ago. (The exact date being February 17, 2010.)

Edit: It should probably be mentioned that the people who run Maximum Jackson are saying there's currently little to no reason to think a hacker is tampering with Jason's account.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

Photo removed.
Thought you guys should have a update on Jasons activity

 

[StellaJackson]

All someone needed to do was figure out Jason's password. It's not that difficult to do. Maximum Jackson wouldn't pick up any unusual activity because it hasn't been hacked per se. Anyone could figure the password out and log in from anywhere. That being said, it could be him. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

If he logs in from a different computer the ip address would be different but he could have more than one device that could access the fourm so id say its him not unless its proven to be hacked which could be likely

 

[StellaJackson]

If he logs in from a different computer the ip address would be different but he could have more than one device that could access the fourm so id say its him not unless its proven to be hacked which could be likely

Could you ask them if the ip address is the same? Would they know what it was before to compare?

Edit: someone already asked that in another thread and the answer was "if you travel around a lot it will change." I would take that to mean it's different so I bet it's not him.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Off topic question: Is by any chance the creator of Maximum Jackson married to Gaz ?

I read her husband was Gary and that came up to my head.

 

[bluesky]

^^ different Gary - his username is Pompous Git