Michael - The Great Album Debate

[IvoDT]

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!

And this, I can fully 100% agree with.
It's just so sad we have fight with each other about a few songs where we aren't sure if it's MJ or not. Some who know for sure, and some who know for sure it isn't him.

Besides that, they should have never cashed in so quickly with the songs and bring out anything inorder to make money.
(What I think is also very bad, in my opinion of course, are 100 greatest hits albums that offer nothing new most of the time).

Anyway, before I go offtopic, haha, I do want to say 1 postive thing. That is songs like Another Day and Hollywood Tonight and even Behind The Mask/Much Too Soon. I'm very happy we atleast got the chance to hear songs like that. Hollywood Tonight IS my most favorite MJ track ever and it's still even a demo. I like the throwback mix the most, btw. Those are things that did make me happy.

But in the end, I think Sony/The Estate must listen more and BETTER to the fans for what they put out in the next album(s). It's not so hard + everybody (almost everybody) would be happy.

 

[IvoDT]

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.

[/b]

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.

I love your post! =P

And Burn Tonight sung by Jan Smit/Marco Borsato hahaha! That would be hilarious. =P
You see, way before it was leaked/the cascio business started I hear (later I heard it was a cascio) MJ did a salsa song (Teddy Riley said that). Me being a very big fan of BOTDF was very hyped to hear it and couldn't wait for it. Now when I finally have it/heard it I can say it sounds very modern/catchy AND very awesome, BUT I know that if MJ really produced/sung this song as prepared for his upcomign album it would have been 1000000 times better. That's what I always think. =)

 

[kreen]

Whether the Estate did the right thing by "finishing up" unreleased songs and presenting them almost as a finished product is a completely different debate, and one where there's probably much more agreement among fans.

What I would have really liked the Estate to do is choose the "archival" route instead of the "new album" one. In other words, I would have liked them to release a box set of unreleased MJ material, left in their original state. That would have been the best, from my point of view.

But if one accepts that they chose to release a "regular" new album instead, I think they did a good job. All 10 songs are pleasant to listen to. They work relatively well as "complete" songs. (I think the one song that still feels very incomplete is Hollywood Tonight : the "rap" is so long, and the chorus is repeated so often, that it draws attention to the song's incompletedness).

I might get crucified for saying this, but I think "Michael" is a more pleasant listen than "Invincible". It's shorter, and the songs grab your attention more quickly. I know my wife -- who's not a fan -- often asks me to play "Michael", while she was fed up with Invincible by the 5th minute of "Heartbreaker".

The other thing that makes me accept "Michael" as an album is that while MJ was really hands-on as a musician, he did work extensively with outside producers. So it's not like with other musicians, where every single thing you hear on the album comes from one person's head. There were always many cooks on a MJ release. So in a way, there may be as much "MJ" on "Michael" as there is on "Invincible", and I have no reason to believe that MJ, had he heard the stuff Teddy Riley or Tricky Stewart did on "Michael", would have said "that's awful, no way I'm using that".

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

And this, I can fully 100% agree with.
It's just so sad we have fight with each other about a few songs where we aren't sure if it's MJ or not. Some who know for sure, and some who know for sure it isn't him.

This alone is a red flag, because we're not talking about a dozen of fans, but about the whole fanbase that is divided.

 

[StellaJackson]

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.

We're talking about finger snaps, claps etc that are absent on the isolated vocal leads. Not something that's actually part of the song or part of an instrumental breakdown.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Whether the Estate did the right thing by "finishing up" unreleased songs and presenting them almost as a finished product is a completely different debate, and one where there's probably much more agreement among fans.

What I would have really liked the Estate to do is choose the "archival" route instead of the "new album" one. In other words, I would have liked them to release a box set of unreleased MJ material, left in their original state. That would have been the best, from my point of view.

But if one accepts that they chose to release a "regular" new album instead, I think they did a good job. All 10 songs are pleasant to listen to. They work relatively well as "complete" songs. (I think the one song that still feels very incomplete is Hollywood Tonight : the "rap" is so long, and the chorus is repeated so often, that it draws attention to the song's incompletedness).

I might get crucified for saying this, but I think "Michael" is a more pleasant listen than "Invincible". It's shorter, and the songs grab your attention more quickly. I know my wife -- who's not a fan -- often asks me to play "Michael", while she was fed up with Invincible by the 5th minute of "Heartbreaker".

The other thing that makes me accept "Michael" as an album is that while MJ was really hands-on as a musician, he did work extensively with outside producers. So it's not like with other musicians, where every single thing you hear on the album comes from one person's head. There were always many cooks on a MJ release. So in a way, there may be as much "MJ" on "Michael" as there is on "Invincible", and I have no reason to believe that MJ, had he heard the stuff Teddy Riley or Tricky Stewart did on "Michael", would have said "that's awful, no way I'm using that".

Damn Kreen, you just didn't say that!

"Invincible" is a Michael Jackson's album!
"Michael" isn't a Michael Jackson's album. It's a compilation of unfinished songs. They just rushed to release it. Not to mention what it caused to the MJ fan community.

Michael included parts from Invincible to his This Is It tour:

"Speechless", "Threatened", and none of the Cascio songs were even mentioned for This Is It tour.

 

[IvoDT]

This alone is a red flag, because we're not talking about a dozen of fans, but about the whole fanbase that is divided.

*Was not only meant at fan base but also all the people who ever bought the album*.
In that case, it's sad to see the fans are fighting with each other about the tracks.
Yet the way I see it now... It's actually more about the whole album and the way they released it than the actual cascio songs and the vocalist, imo.

 

[IvoDT]

Damn Kreen, you just didn't say that!

"Invincible" is a Michael Jackson's album!
"Michael" isn't a Michael Jackson's album. It's a compilation of unfinished songs. They just rushed to release it. Not to mention what it caused to the MJ fan community.

Michael included parts from Invincible to his This Is It tour:

"Speechless", "Threatened", and none of the Cascio songs were even mentioned for This Is It tour.

He just says he thinks "Michael" is a more pleasant listen than "Invincible". His opinion, even though it's made by MJ and the other one isn't.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

*Was not only meant at fan base but also all the people who ever bought the album*.
In that case, it's sad to see the fans are fighting with each other about the tracks.
Yet the way I see it now... It's actually more about the whole album and the way they released it than the actual cascio songs and the vocalist, imo.

The thing is, the Cascios are amateurs and James Porte came out of nowhere. And we have supposed MJ's songs on an official MJ's album with people who reportedly wrote lyrics and music for Michael. People who are total amateurs. We know how much Michael spent on working on his lyrics or how difficult he was to choose to sing lyrics written by others. On top of that the vocals are different than usual. Even Teddy Riley admited it on the interview. He even apologized for that because according to him it is due to melodyne. Now, I call that disrespecting Michael's work. Unreleasable on an official MJ's album. It should have been locked until they had perfect proof Michael worked on those tracks, the way Barry Gibb did.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

He just says he thinks "Michael" is a more pleasant listen than "Invincible". His opinion, even though it's made by MJ and the other one isn't.

We're talking about Michael Jackson's perfectionism, professionalism and unique craft. Man gave life for his art. How can a MJ fan say that the songs that were not finsihed by MJ are more pleasant than the songs finished by MJ? If a non-fan says so, I can understand. But if a MJ fan says so, then obviously I can't.

 

[StellaJackson]

*Was not only meant at fan base but also all the people who ever bought the album*.
In that case, it's sad to see the fans are fighting with each other about the tracks.
Yet the way I see it now... It's actually more about the whole album and the way they released it than the actual cascio songs and the vocalist, imo.

No it's because they put highly questionable vocals on an album, under the presumption that all fans have "mug" stamped on their forehead. They then tried to quell the discontent with a patronising, insulting statement that is full of inaccuracies. Instead of working with the fans on this issue Sony have used bullying tactics to try and silence us, thus making a bad situation worse. And the two people who could clear up the whole thing (Cascio, Porte) are conspicuous by their absence. They are the only two alleged eye witnesses to these recording sessions and they have provided nothing. Not one story, note, out take. And they just happen to be the two who sold these songs for millions of dollars.

 

[IvoDT]

Believe me, Bumper, I agree aswell. This WHOLE thing should have NEVER happened. It's that simple.
It's only for me, that I can't accept "people" saying it's Jason/an impersonator on those songs, even though they sound a bit different. They should've just kept the tracks in a vault indeed OR like you said brought all 12 on 1 album with the raw/any kind of proof they had with it. Should have been a bit better.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Believe me, Bumper, I agree aswell. This WHOLE thing should have NEVER happened. It's that simple.
It's only for me, that I can't accept "people" saying it's Jason/an impersonator on those songs, even though they sound a bit different. They should've just kept the tracks in a vault indeed OR like you said brought all 12 on 1 album with the raw/any kind of proof they had with it. Should have been a bit better.

The thing is, from the very first moment we heard those tracks, it made us immediately thought of Jason Malachi. It is actually sad that you hear a supposedly MJ track and you hear a soundalike.

Now, the whole issue about Jason Malachi isn't that important. We never actually focused on Jason Malachi. The core matter of the fact is that we don't/can't hear Michael on those track sat all. Something is wrong either with those vocals or with our ears. There is no other way to explain things.

The only reason why those comparisons were made is to raise awarness to the believers and try to explain what was the reason why we hear Jason Malachi. No one is Jason' Malachi's fan here, no one wants intentionally to advertize for him. Those ausio comparisons are purely made to say to the believers "look, this is where we hear Jason and this is why we hear Jason." Nothing more actually. And yes there are many comparisons, because there are many instances where we actually do hear Jason without wanting to hear him.

Concrete examles are:

-snorts
-shaky vibrato
-similar/same falsetto
-lack of power in voice where we'd expect Michael to sing stronger (lack of angry husk/grit)
-some pronunciations such as "wa'ing"

and many more things.

So these are the things that our ears hear and we just provided it on the audio files side aside with JM's parts of songs, knowing that JM did not do his best t o imitate MJ on his own songs. So with a little effort we deduce that JM would be able to sound like someone on the Cascio tracks. With extra processing/melodyining, autotuning, or you name it, and copy-pasting our suspicion is just higher. But nothing is intentional here.

We want the truth, and we the doubters are looking forward to being proven wrong.

 

[IvoDT]

The thing is, from the very first moment we heard those tracks, it made us immediately thought of Jason Malachi. It is actually sad that you hear a supposedly MJ track and you hear a soundalike.

Now, the whole issue about Jason Malachi isn't that important. We never actually focused on Jason Malachi. The core matter of the fact is that we don't/can't hear Michael on those track sat all. Something is wrong either with those vocals or with our ears. There is no other way to explain things.

The only reason why those comparisons were made is to raise awarness to the believers and try to explain what was the reason why we hear Jason Malachi. No one is Jason' Malachi's fan here, no one wants intentionally to advertize for him. Those ausio comparisons are purely made to say to the believers "look, this is where we hear Jason and this is why we hear Jason." Nothing more actually. And yes there are many comparisons, because there are many instances where we actually do hear Jason without wanting to hear him.

Concrete examles are:

-snorts
-shaky vibrato
-similar/same falsetto
-lack of power in voice where we'd expect Michael to sing stronger (lack of angry husk/grit)
-some pronunciations such as "wa'ing"

and many more things.

So these are the things that our ears hear and we just provided it on the audio files side aside with JM's parts of songs, knowing that JM did not do his best t o imitate MJ on his own songs. So with a little effort we deduce that JM would be able to sound like someone on the Cascio tracks. With extra processing/melodyining, autotuning, or you name it, and copy-pasting our suspicion is just higher. But nothing is intentional here.

We want the truth, and we the doubters are looking forward to being proven wrong.

I can't say anything other than I also want the truth. =)

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

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.

Another thing is we do not know how these demos are maybe they are too short or incomplete and it will fail in sales because not only Michael Jackson fans buy MJ's music so they can fix them with ad-libs and complete Michael's vision for that song like on the "Michael" album on the back it says

"This album contains 9 previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson. These tracks were recently completed using music from the original vocal tracks and music created by the credited producers".


Like I said before next time they release Cascio material they should include a voulcher to download the original demos.

 

[kreen]

Damn Kreen, you just didn't say that!

"Invincible" is a Michael Jackson's album!
"Michael" isn't a Michael Jackson's album. It's a compilation of unfinished songs. They just rushed to release it. Not to mention what it caused to the MJ fan community.

Yes, but all of that stuff is "external" to the actual music. I'm judging the music itself on its own merits, without letting what I know about the making or the consequences of the albums influence my opinion.

Let me put it this way : if MJ were still alive, and both Invincible and Michael had came out exactly as they did, and both were thus "real" MJ albums, I'd rate Michael higher than I do Invincible. It's just an easier, more fun listen for me. "Invincible" can be a chore, man. By the time "Cry" comes up, I'm usually pretty much ready to call it a day.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Damn Kreen, you just didn't say that!

"Invincible" is a Michael Jackson's album!
"Michael" isn't a Michael Jackson's album. It's a compilation of unfinished songs. They just rushed to release it. Not to mention what it caused to the MJ fan community.

Michael included parts from Invincible to his This Is It tour:

"Speechless", "Threatened", and none of the Cascio songs were even mentioned for This Is It tour.

I'm sorry but how do you know he wasn't planning something for it ? And we only seen 2 hours of footage theres a lot more.

Frank did say that Michael was going to take some of the Cascio tracks with him to record the final version while on tour.

 

[kreen]

How can a MJ fan say that the songs that were not finsihed by MJ are more pleasant than the songs finished by MJ?

It happens! Gee, I like "In the Back" -- as unfinished as it is -- way more than "Privacy", which was finished.

You know, the idea that there are certains things that one can say or think when one is a fan, and things that are forbidden... I don't know man, but that wouldn't fly in other fan communities.

I mean, try telling a Black Sabbath fan that he shouldn't like Ronnie James Dio's albums more then he does Ozzy Osbourne's, and see what happens...

 

[StellaJackson]

Another thing is we do not know how these demos are maybe they are too short or incomplete and it will fail in sales because not only Michael Jackson fans buy MJ's music so they can fix them with ad-libs and complete Michael's vision for that song like on the "Michael" album on the back it says

"This album contains 9 previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson. These tracks were recently completed using music from the original vocal tracks and music created by the credited producers".


Like I said before next time they release Cascio material they should include a voulcher to download the original demos.

We have the original Cascio demos. The vocals sound just the same, thus destroying Riley's excuse for the vibrato.

 

[StellaJackson]

I'm sorry but how do you know he wasn't planning something for it ? And we only seen 2 hours of footage theres a lot more.

Frank did say that Michael was going to take some of the Cascio tracks with him to record the final version while on tour.

What Frank said is meaningless. It's hearsay at best and he is obviously going to say that to support his brother's work. No Cascio material was rehearsed for This Is It. And there's a good reason for that: it didn't exist.

 

[IvoDT]

We have the original Cascio demos. The vocals sound just the same, thus destroying Riley's excuse for the vibrato.

We do not have the original demo's.

 

[StellaJackson]

We do not have the original demo's.

Yes we do, they leaked last September.

 

[kreen]

No it's because they put highly questionable vocals on an album, under the presumption that all fans have "mug" stamped on their forehead. They then tried to quell the discontent with a patronising, insulting statement that is full of inaccuracies. Instead of working with the fans on this issue Sony have used bullying tactics to try and silence us, thus making a bad situation worse. And the two people who could clear up the whole thing (Cascio, Porte) are conspicuous by their absence. They are the only two alleged eye witnesses to these recording sessions and they have provided nothing. Not one story, note, out take. And they just happen to be the two who sold these songs for millions of dollars.

You know how much money they sold the songs for? Care to give us more details?

Also, please consider that :

1- No matter what Eddie Cascio said or did or showed, some doubters (maybe not you) would not believe them, and would then turn their attention to discrediting whatever new evidence was produced. I can see it from here : "this picture doesn't prove MJ actually SANG the songs, it just proves he toured the studio"; "that outtake is just Jason Malachi singing the songs again, that's why it took so long for it to come out"; "that's not really Paris you can hear on the tape; I'll only believe it when Paris herself confirms it"; etc.

2- Eddie Cascio might have said nothing at first because he was still under a confidentiality agreement following the release of the album; didn't Teddy Riley tweet that he was told by the Estate to put a sock in it when he started arguing with fans who -- it is so nice of them -- took to accusing him of being a criminal? And Cascio might be saying nothing now because of a lawsuit.

Or he might also be saying nothing now because he thinks doubters are conspiracy theorists and he won't dignify their insulting accusations against his character by actually responding to them.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

We have the original Cascio demos. The vocals sound just the same, thus destroying Riley's excuse for the vibrato.

What you have is labeled as demos it does not mean it's the actual thing the raw demo is what the estate and Sony posses.

 

[kreen]

What Frank said is meaningless. It's hearsay at best and he is obviously going to say that to support his brother's work. No Cascio material was rehearsed for This Is It. And there's a good reason for that: it didn't exist.

Yes, that is the only rational possibility...

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

What Frank said is meaningless. It's hearsay at best and he is obviously going to say that to support his brother's work. No Cascio material was rehearsed for This Is It. And there's a good reason for that: it didn't exist.

And you know this because ?

We know the leaked info not the rest and I never said he rehearsed it I said that Frank said MJ was gonna record the song's final version in the U.K to prep it for an album that MJ was planning.

 

[Pentum]

What you have is labeled as demos it does not mean it's the actual thing the raw demo is what the estate and Sony posses.

If someone has the "raw demos", it's Eddie only. Not the Estate and Sony. They have the "pre-mixes" which were in that hacked Sony server.

 

[StellaJackson]

You know how much money they sold the songs for? Care to give us more details?

Also, please consider that :

1- No matter what Eddie Cascio said or did or showed, some doubters (maybe not you) would not believe them, and would then turn their attention to discrediting whatever new evidence was produced. I can see it from here : "this picture doesn't prove MJ actually SANG the songs, it just proves he toured the studio"; "that outtake is just Jason Malachi singing the songs again, that's why it took so long for it to come out"; "that's not really Paris you can hear on the tape; I'll only believe it when Paris herself confirms it"; etc.

2- Eddie Cascio might have said nothing at first because he was still under a confidentiality agreement following the release of the album; didn't Teddy Riley tweet that he was told by the Estate to put a sock in it when he started arguing with fans who -- it is so nice of them -- took to accusing him of being a criminal? And Cascio might be saying nothing now because of a lawsuit.

Or he might also be saying nothing now because he thinks doubters are conspiracy theorists and he won't dignify their insulting accusations against his character by actually responding to them.

You don't sell 12 contemporary Michael Jackson songs for short change. The deal between Sony and the Estate is for 250 millions. It is obvious that these songs would have been sold for a considerably large amount.

You still don't understand that we want Michael to have sung the songs. It doesn't matter whether they are the best or the worst songs ever recorded. We just don't want to know that Michael was stabbed in the back in such a way. Hard proof would not be dismissed so easily. The fact that they have never shown any hard proof of Michael's involvement is because there isn't any.

If Frank/Eddie Cascio in any way cared about their friend Michael, and had nothing to hide, they would have spoken out by now. Not for them. Not for the fans. But for Michael.

 

[StellaJackson]

And you know this because ?

We know the leaked info not the rest and I never said he rehearsed it I said that Frank said MJ was gonna record the song's final version in the U.K to prep it for an album that MJ was planning.

The absence of any Cascio titles from the list of songs that Michael was working on, or intending to work on at the time of his death would be a good indicator. Also, Michael never premiered a new song live.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Another thing is we do not know how these demos are maybe they are too short or incomplete and it will fail in sales because not only Michael Jackson fans buy MJ's music so they can fix them with ad-libs and complete Michael's vision for that song like on the "Michael" album on the back it says

You don't fix what master has crafted. You either let it go or you release it as such. Who cares about sales anyway. We're talking quality of music, not quantity of sold "fixed" music.

"This album contains 9 previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson. These tracks were recently completed using music from the original vocal tracks and music created by the credited producers".


Like I said before next time they release Cascio material they should include a voulcher to download the original demos.

First thing they should do is listen to the fans. If there's a big controversy, they should hold their dragons before unleashing them. Something they've been unable to do. They messed it up big time. You can't deny that, or else we wouldn't be debating inhere.

Yes, but all of that stuff is "external" to the actual music. I'm judging the music itself on its own merits, without letting what I know about the making or the consequences of the albums influence my opinion.

Let me put it this way : if MJ were still alive, and both Invincible and Michael had came out exactly as they did, and both were thus "real" MJ albums, I'd rate Michael higher than I do Invincible. It's just an easier, more fun listen for me. "Invincible" can be a chore, man. By the time "Cry" comes up, I'm usually pretty much ready to call it a day.

I am sorry, but again, an average MJ fan or even non-fan would say so. A hardcore MJ fan would never say such a thing. I can't understand how you can claim to be a fan and at the same time say being bored by one of MJ's albums. It doesn't match, sorry.

I'm sorry but how do you know he wasn't planning something for it ? And we only seen 2 hours of footage theres a lot more.

Frank did say that Michael was going to take some of the Cascio tracks with him to record the final version while on tour.

Of course Frank said so. But I haven't seen anything said by MJ himself. I did see MJ sang Speechless and danced to Threatened. You can't fight this fact with a heresay by Frank. Show me Michael singing those songs, like he sang Speechless and danced to Threatened.