Yes! I like this guy! He's a believer but he UNDERSTANDS the issues that the doubters have with tampering of the voice/tracks...BOTH sides should be just as pissed off with what happened with these songs regardless of their beliefs on who sings the songs...
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Yes! I like this guy! He's a believer but he UNDERSTANDS the issues that the doubters have with tampering of the voice/tracks...BOTH sides should be just as pissed off with what happened with these songs regardless of their beliefs on who sings the songs...
unfortunately like stella you fail to recognize that my posts has NOTHING to do with vocal recognition but everything to do with CRITICAL REASONING. that's why I never go into or answer questions about vocal recognition (that you keep asking) - as that's not my point at all and they are irrelevant for my issue at hand - but focus on the strength of arguments - hence deduction, induction, analytically thinking and critical reasoning.
Both Stella's and your posts made it crystal clear to me that neither one of you have the slightest understanding of what I'm talking about and you are mixing it up with voice recognition.
I said I'm torn and parts sound like Michael and some don't. I don't think I classified myself as good or bad at voice identification. Regardless it's better than thinking I'm some kind of a super human that cannot be wrong. Regardless my points hasn't been about voice identification.
Again thank you for showing to me what is lost in this thread and why it's no longer suitable for me. Unfortunately the people who I loved to discuss are so lost in this debate that they can no longer even see what I'm talking about. So disappointing.
cliff notes: you provided a bit of information about Quincy and then said "safe to assume" that the same will apply to Bruce because they are both "people that worked with Michael". I said your analytical thinking is flawed because you focus on a generalization of "people that worked with Michael" but there could be differentiating points between Bruce and Quincy in regards to their duties, time and exposure. At no time I made no claims about who the vocals belong to or who is right in their vocal identification or what people hear or not or what they should hear or believe. Voice recognition was not the issue at hand, I was talking about analytical and critical reasoning only.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
I understand what you're talking about fully, I just don't think it makes any real difference to the issue at hand.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
What you fail to understand is that you don't need to reason to hear or not hear Michael Jackson on those tracks!
Then your posts are completely out of scope and in hell of a wrong thread. This thread IS about vocals and hearing them. Not about your classes.
When I pose you a logical problem, without needingto listen to anything, you simply never answer.
So I'll ask again, from your reasoning perspective:
What are the chances that fans get fooled by
1-a soundalike?
2-Michael Jackson?
Use your logical reasoning and not some superhuman ears as you think people claim to have.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
It doesn't make any difference, because no matter how we look at it, those vocals do not sound MJ.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
And thats's my whole point. It's just a distraction.
WhoIsIt89
Proud Member
Well if you're going to say "This isn't Michael because such and such didn't recognize his voice" you need to be able to back that up with reason, and why this persons view should be held higher than anyone elses. And since hearing is ultimately subjective, there's not much value in personal opinions.
I don't know what Quincy has to do with this either way, because Quincy never made his opinion known. To this day I still recall him saying "it sounds like Michael, but there's too many voices to tell".
I don't know what Quincy has to do with this either way, because Quincy never made his opinion known. To this day I still recall him saying "it sounds like Michael, but there's too many voices to tell".
funny now bumper seems to forget what he posted and what I quoted when we first started this discussion. you brought that into this debate
cliff notes: you provided a bit of information about Quincy and then said "safe to assume" that the same will apply to Bruce because they are both "people that worked with Michael". I said your analytical thinking is flawed because you focus on a generalization of "people that worked with Michael" but there could be differentiating points between Bruce and Quincy in regards to their duties, time and exposure and ability. At no time I made no claims about who the vocals belong to or who is right in their vocal identification or what people hear or not or what they should hear or believe. Voice recognition was not the issue at hand, I was talking about analytical and critical reasoning only and your assumptions.
that has been my point from the start. let me remind you of my first post
It was always about your critical thinking and analytical reasoning and had nothing to do with voice identification or any claim of Michael or Malachi.
It's crystal clear that multiple of you failed to understand what I'm talking about and even unfairly accused me of trying to educate people on "voice recognition" or telling them what they are supposed to hear or claiming knowledge / superiority in "voice recognition". Again this lack of basic understanding of the discussion topic and lack of proper reading shows that I'm wasting my time here.
btw
this is the biggest bull. In life issues are generally multi-faceted. In this thread just over the last few days we have seen discussions about 2005 copyright registrations and allegations of domain removal. Over the course of the last year this thread included everything from body language analysis to analyzing volunteering information, to wording of statements. This thread is not solely about vocals and hearing, it's a multi-faceted thread that includes many different but somewhat tied to the issue at hand topics. If this thread is about vocals and hearing them then all the things written should be limited to voice, vibrato, pronunciation etc. That's not the case here.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
What is more is that even some believers acknowledge that something is odd with the voice. That's the whole point. I don't even see what logical reasoning have to do with hearing. And by the way as I said, even if we think logically there's much better chance that a soundalike fools people than that Michael Jackson himself fools people. So no matter how we see it -either logically or by simply listening to the voice.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
ivy;3578619 said:
Of course I was talking about assumptions regarding vocal recognition based on that argument alone. I never said I was sure that Bruce was able or unable to recognize Michael's vocals. So What's your point?
What you said is that I assumed that Bruce didn't listen to MJ's voice as much as a MJ hardcore fan. To what I replied to you read his biography and résumé. It's not difficult to see that Bruce isn't any different than other professional who worked with Michael such as for example Quincy Jones. I never compared Quincy's and Bruce's professions. I just said they both worked with Michael and it's not because they worked with Michael that they would be any better in recognizing MJ's voice than MJ's fans.
ivy;3578619 said:
I don't know if you do it on purpose or not, but your quotes do not include my full analytical thinking which I bolded, underlined and put in red! I didn't increase the size of the letters because, as you mockingly asked last time "someone's blind?", I thought people would be able to read them. I'll start to think that some people really are blind and that they really need the fonts in bigger size.
So, one more time, my analystical thinking says where is one single example of the facts that Quincy, Siedah or Bruce mentioned in those tracks that are present on the Cascio tracks? I don't see them.
Here are those facts absent from the Cascio tracks:
-warming up the voice
-constantly working on lyrics
-not resting
-filming
-recording in maximum 4 takes
-claps
-outtakes
-worktapes
etc?
Now use your analytical mind and answer other things than providing a bunch of excuses such as MJ was sick or not fit or that he did it for fun.
Last edited:
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
It's backed up by the total absence of any distinguishing characteristics of mj's voice and the complete presence of all of Jason Cupeta's, on evey take of every song (accent, vibrato, pronounciatio etc) And that's before we even get into other stuff. There are arguments to justify those things, but it is still a fact that they are there. To me, when taking everything else into account (lack of any evidence at all from Cascio, Jason's behaviour etc), all roads lead to the same conclusion.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Am I the only one to see the double standards here?
When believers use Teddy Riley to say that he "recognizes" MJ's voice, it seems it's not a problem at all.
When I provide a link of someone like Quincy Jones stating he couldn't recognize between MJ's and Siedah's voice, then all of sudden it becomes irrelevant.
Well if Quincy is irrelevant, then Teddy's as much irrelevant as Quincy. Let's stop the game with words then.
When believers use Teddy Riley to say that he "recognizes" MJ's voice, it seems it's not a problem at all.
When I provide a link of someone like Quincy Jones stating he couldn't recognize between MJ's and Siedah's voice, then all of sudden it becomes irrelevant.
Well if Quincy is irrelevant, then Teddy's as much irrelevant as Quincy. Let's stop the game with words then.
can you blame me for that sentence? you are STILL asking me about voice recognition related questions when I CLEARLY and MULTIPLE times pointed out that was not my point at all and I keep ignoring them because of that and I have multiple times before today wrote I have no longer any interest in this debate and I'm only posting "technical" information. so what am I supposed to think when people seem to not able to understand a basic thing that I have wrote multiple times?
thank you for another baseless assumption when you know nothing about me at all. I can point out the flaws in your reasoning but I'm afraid that you'll think I'm talking about world peace.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Critical thinking is also questioning one's own methods of thinking. So far you've been thinking that we were the ones talking about world peace. As long as you don't include all the facts, your critical thinking won't be taken seriously for this particula matter in this particular thread. I don't even know why you're insisting knowing that we don't have all the facts.
We're left with our ears in the end anyway.
I'll repost something I wrote and probably not seen
btw
this is the biggest bull. In life issues are generally multi-faceted. In this thread just over the last few days we have seen discussions about 2005 copyright registrations and allegations of domain removal. Over the course of the last year this thread included everything from body language analysis to analyzing volunteering information - or lack there of, to wording of statements. This thread is not solely about vocals and hearing, it's a multi-faceted thread that includes many different but somewhat tied to the issue at hand topics. If this thread is about vocals and hearing them then all the things written should be limited to voice, vibrato, pronunciation etc. That's not the case here.
so then you say:
what particular matter? for example : there have been paged and pages discussion about copyright registrations in this thread when totally ignoring the issue of what's being heard in the vocals. This thread has been multi-faceted and wide in range of topics.
so there's no sense in acting like it's something that only I do or it's my weakness. It's a multi-faceted issue. It's totally okay to talk about one aspect while not touching to the others. If you want this to be solely about vocals and ears, that's what you should have limited the discussion, that ship has long sailed.
ps : you totally missed the "world peace" thing.
kreen
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,139
- Points
- 83
If that guy is a journalist, then he needs to write an article about the Cascio songs, where he explains why he thinks they are fake. Such an article, if it were published in a music magazine, might generate interest in the issue and lead to some answers.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I saw it. It's just that I don't see anything related in your post to what I posted about Siedah Garett and Bruce Swedien. I said I bolded and underlined important facts in their statements. All those facts are absent from the Cascio songs.
Now, What does your post have to do anything with what I bolded? Nothing. You quoted something else and started talking about things that I hadn't even mentioned or bolded.
The matter that people do not hear MJ on the one hand, and on the other, facts that are stated by people who worked with Michael. None of the facts are present on the Cascio tracks, yet you come up with analytical thinking based soleley on legal matters. Yes, legally those vocals are MJ. But it doesn't make any difference to what people hear. By the way, there are more factors going against those tracks being authentic, than in favor. We have not a single outtake, worktape, or any other substantial proof. And all those facts are absent from your analytical thinking. It can't be taken seriously for those reasons.
How do you know what I understood from that sentence? Who is assuming here now, Miss,... or should I say 'Madam'?
Last edited:
kreen
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,139
- Points
- 83
By the way, some people have used as some sort of evidence the fact that you can't hear fingersnaps on any of the songs, because apparently MJ always authentified his own songs by putting some fingersnapping in there. Well I was just listening to "Stay" again the other day, and there's a breakdown where you only hear finger snapping.
So now the doubters will of course reverse their position and say that the finger snapping actually PROVES the songs are fake, because Eddie Cascio put that in there to fool us.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Watch the video I posted. It's made by a fellow believer. You'll understand my point.
Chamife
Proud Member
That was nice to watch and I also agree with him on a lot of things.
Especially liked 6.10-6.35, from which this:
"If the song was only 1.50 sec. long and that's all he finished, I would rather you put that out. Let me hear what his thoughts was, let me hear the artistry, let me hear the beauty of what he was trying to convey".
I understand him so much.
Yes, that's what I personally would love most, but there wouldn't be a market for it. Not everyone feels this way. Not everyone would understand/see the beauty of that.
I've accepted other musicians have to finish some work of his and if I can still 'feel' Michael and his intentions with the songs or understand why he recorded it and like this guy said, profits are going to his children and charity, so...that's ok.
But what's absolutely NOT ok, is using someone elses voice (or melodyned and changed beyond recognition, ) and lyrics.
The thing this man said about letting him hear what Michael's thoughts were, and letting him hear the artistry...made me remember something I said when I first heard 'Breaking News'. Totally believing it HAD TO BE Michael and mainly focussing on the music and the melody (lyrics didn't come through in my head yet, although I thought Michael using his own name was odd) because I already had given up on the voice I said someting like : "I feel the song, I feel what he liked about it".
Jeezz...how sad.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
His point is my whole point actually. I can't agree more. The only thing I don't share with this guy is recognizing Michael on songs such as Monster. To him it's Michael, to me it's not.
But hey, that's not the only issue. This believer is defending MICHAEL!
Here all believers I am talking to are defending the Cascios and they forget about how MJ was perfectionist. They forget Michael. If they should release something made by Michael, they should not touch it, just the way MJ himself released songs such as "In The Back". It's not complete, well it's perfect like it is.
Many believers fail to see that argument. They rather rub the Cascios and show how "nice" they are.
Well, the nicest thing they should do is stay away from MJ's music.
Chamife
Proud Member
That's what I'm hoping for and maybe that will happen. I'm putting trust in some fans who are more knowledgable of the facts/better in English than me to take that opportunity.
IvoDT
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2010
- Messages
- 434
- Points
- 18
And let me remind you, that as a believer myself, I too see things the exact same way.
Where do we find a difference? We aren't saying SOMEONE ELSE is singing these songs. Yet they are overproduced/not good enough for Michael's standards which I can fully agree with. But hey, not everyone thinks the way you do or I do.
Take me for example, I still love all those cascio tracks and whatever will come out that he made. Why? Because I absolutely love his music and his whole freaking legacy. And here's the important part: Yes, these vocals DO sound different, when did I/other people EVER say they don't? It's just, we KNOW/HEAR it's Michael and won't blame/start a war on everyone and even the fans because we think it's freaking Jason singing (or someone else, BUT you guys are like 99% sure it's Jason right?).
What I see here everyday is people b*tching to each other because of simple things like the purpose of the topic/thread and why reasoning isn't needed because you guys hear someone else singing. It's all so incredibly useless. (And before I get attacked on this, no I won't leave this thread because I think this thread is getting useless, sorry guys).
STILL I can SOMEHOW understand how you guys feel about these tracks and even understand you guys believing it's someone else singing. Just as much as I somehow can understand people who believe MJ is still alive (even though that one IS a bit different).
So again, in short, not all "fans"/people in the world seem to think Breaking News and other tracks are pure crap and hurt his legacy and they just listen to the music and hear MJ and that is all they really want, just as I do.
And I can fully understand, as mentioned before, that you guys think otherwise and that the guy was a perfectionist, but it's obvious that there won't be another Thriller/Bad/Dangerous/History/Invincible. The man isn't here anymore.
And with that I'll end my long rant for now, as if anyone ever reads it.
P.S: Burn Tonight would be a hot song for the summer/clubs. =)
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
IvoDT,
You say you feel the same way the guy does on the video, yet you're talking about releasing Burn 2nite. I don't see how you share what this guy said. He said not to touch MJ's vocals and to release them they way he left them even if they're 1 minute long.
Wouldn't you prefer songs which wouldn't trigger controversy such as Slave To The Rhythm? Cascio vocals are all messed up.
IvoDT
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2010
- Messages
- 434
- Points
- 18
I would love to hear other MJ songs and leave the cascio's in "the vault"?
It's just that, (quoting the guy aswell, because he loved Monster) the music from Burn Tonight is just too awesome, In my opinion of course and I'm just sure that IF they would release that it would be a good summer song/club song.
And even if I like the cascio songs I would like/hope to not see them on the next album and just have normal MJ tracks or demo's or whatever. What I AM trying to say is, IF they still would release some of the cascio songs on the next album, I won't start a war against them. Not saying I wouldn't be dissapointed.
It's just that, (quoting the guy aswell, because he loved Monster) the music from Burn Tonight is just too awesome, In my opinion of course and I'm just sure that IF they would release that it would be a good summer song/club song.
And even if I like the cascio songs I would like/hope to not see them on the next album and just have normal MJ tracks or demo's or whatever. What I AM trying to say is, IF they still would release some of the cascio songs on the next album, I won't start a war against them. Not saying I wouldn't be dissapointed.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I don't know if some of you have follwed this thread since the beginning, but my whole idea was first not to release any MJ's song as long as there is the slightest shred of doubt. As long as they cannot provide substantial proof they should'nt release MJ's songs.
Second, I also suggested another alternative - to release those songs on a completely different album, maybe a kind of album with (supposed) MJ's ideas and collaborations, but without mixing them with other MJ's unreleased songs.
Finally, I also suggested a third alternative - to release the Cascio songs, but then to include a second CD with bonus tracks of all the Cascio tracks unprocessed, without any mix, just raw in order to have some kind of evidence that MJ did work on them.
Among all the propositions I find my first proposition the most reasonable, but no, they rushed and cashed in. That's why I am so angry about them and all those who actually defend them failing to see that this was pure business to them. They didn't care about Michael at all. They still don't.
I posted this video of the believer, because he's the first believer who ever defended Michael' legacy in all this quagmire. So I just wanted to illustrate that I am not on the back of believers, but on those who defend the Cascios failing to see what they did to Michael's legacy and his fans - a rift!
Second, I also suggested another alternative - to release those songs on a completely different album, maybe a kind of album with (supposed) MJ's ideas and collaborations, but without mixing them with other MJ's unreleased songs.
Finally, I also suggested a third alternative - to release the Cascio songs, but then to include a second CD with bonus tracks of all the Cascio tracks unprocessed, without any mix, just raw in order to have some kind of evidence that MJ did work on them.
Among all the propositions I find my first proposition the most reasonable, but no, they rushed and cashed in. That's why I am so angry about them and all those who actually defend them failing to see that this was pure business to them. They didn't care about Michael at all. They still don't.
I posted this video of the believer, because he's the first believer who ever defended Michael' legacy in all this quagmire. So I just wanted to illustrate that I am not on the back of believers, but on those who defend the Cascios failing to see what they did to Michael's legacy and his fans - a rift!
Chamife
Proud Member
I also understand believers like you. I would get angry at the 'doubters' too, sabotaging Michael's legacy, because that's how it would feel. Bless yourself lucky you hear Michael. I really mean that.
We're running in circles sometimes, yes. But it is nice to talk to people who think the same way about the songs. Don't know where else to do that.
You mean we can't accept it is Michael singing, like people who can't accept Michael has gone? Lol, just kidding. Yeah..it's a bit different.
I can value the songs for what they are worth (to me), without connecting them with Michael.
If Burn Tonight would be sung by Jan Smit or Marco Borsato, it would be a nr. 1, don't you think..
.It just doesn't fit Michael. I have a hard time picturing him singing this.