Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

I realize it's not Dave's complete work but some of it is there. So he should be credited.

Rather than saying "Snare drums: Dave Grohl" they wrote "Drums: Dave Grohl". So he's over credited like I said but it's not like he's not there at all either.

Similarly Slash is given a rather vague credit of "intro" although it doesn't specify what is intro and caused many people believe that he played guitars on that song. They could have written "skit" rather than intro.
 
If he was sure his work was there he shouldn't have opened his mouth at all.
To think that Lenny and David's work was there was one of the few things that I liked in that album. -sigh
 
ivy said:
Prince Jackson
Ppl who will always be in my mind and heart Dad, Monkey, the Cascios, the Stevens, Anton, Franchesca, Jaz, Jess, Sarah J.J, Lizzy, Nikita,
Click to expand...

Yes, but we don't know for what reasons they'll be in his mind and in his heart. :D

lucilla said:
This doesn't sound good for the album :unsure:http://www.contactmusic.com/news/dave-grohl-doesnt-appear-on-jackson-track_1254292
Click to expand...

This has already been discussed I think.

ivy said:
426380_337844159580017_121841604513608_1065003_1650766704_n.jpg


In the full article he says that his snare drums are included. So they might be giving him too much credit but yet portions of his drums/work are there.

Edited to add : this is exactly like the situation with Slash and how unclear credits made people believe that he played on Black or White and years later he said he didn't play that "gay" riff.
Click to expand...

I think that when giving credits, they shouldn't play around, but rather be straightforward. Being ambiguous could lead to controversy like this one.

Regarding Slash on Black Or White. I remember reading it in the press back in the 90s. From what I remember in the article, it was not Slash who claimed so, but his fans. Now did Slash claim it too, I personally haven't read it. All in all, those (including Slash himeslef if he said it) who were supporting the claim that Slash didn't play all the guitar parts on Black or White flushed down the day he accepted to come and "perform" (althought it seemed more as a playback on the second video) on MTV with Michael. This event stopped the controversy in any case.

[youtube]cdTrYU6CFNM&feature=fvst[/youtube]

[youtube]_5iU55AvKHo&feature=fvst[/youtube]

lucilla said:
David said "I'm not on that song, dude. They sampled, like, my snare and that's it" not his complete work.
The thing with David is that he was a long time MJ fan.

What Slash said it's funny now because he worked with Martha Sanchez after MJ, one of those balad singers that no rock musician want to be involved with.
Click to expand...

I agree, the credits shouold really be much clearer than that for the information sake.

ivy said:
I realize it's not Dave's complete work but some of it is there. So he should be credited.

Rather than saying "Snare drums: Dave Grohl" they wrote "Drums: Dave Grohl". So he's over credited like I said but it's not like he's not there at all either.

Similarly Slash is given a rather vague credit of "intro" although it doesn't specify what is intro and caused many people believe that he played guitars on that song. They could have written "skit" rather than intro.
Click to expand...

I think they sometimes do it on purpose in order to generate more publicity for the song or the album. But, honestly the exact information should prevail, not the publicity.

lucilla said:
If he was sure his work was there he shouldn't have opened his mouth at all.
To think that Lenny and David's work was there was one of the few things that I liked in that album. -sigh
Click to expand...

I agree, if he didn't bother, he wouldn't say anything. But this only indicates the lack of clear information when people are credited. I think they should be more vigilant with this kind of thing.

Aniram said:
Yeah, more like 23,000 times.
Click to expand...

Count it again, because I am not sure if that number is correct. You have two days. :D

teli-mj said:
As if this album hadn't much controversy already. What a hot mess.
Click to expand...

Everything is your fault. :D
 
Last edited:
The only thing Slash played on Black or White is the guitar on the opening skit - the place where Maculay Culkin makes the sound with guitar and his father comes in the room , that's it. Slash is credited as "intro", his performances with Michael created the mis belief that he actually played all the guitars, it wasn't the case.

And you are right, it's for publicity. Slash intro is a lot better than Slash the 2 second sound on the skit, similarly Dave Grohl drums is a lot better than Dave Grohl snare drums. They are over crediting people to benefit from their name.

As far as I can see Dave Grohl's unhappiness is due to the fact that not all of his work is used. Slash was a lot worse imo, waiting for years, letting people to think he played the guitars on Black or White and after Michael's death calling the guitar riff - which he played twice live btw - "gay".
 
ivy said:
The only thing Slash played on Black or White is the guitar on the opening skit - the place where Maculay Culkin makes the sound with guitar and his father comes in the room , that's it. Slash is credited as "intro", his performances with Michael created the mis belief that he actually played all the guitars, it wasn't the case.

And you are right, it's for publicity. Slash intro is a lot better than Slash the 2 second sound on the skit, similarly Dave Grohl drums is a lot better than Dave Grohl snare drums. They are over crediting people to benefit from their name.

As far as I can see Dave Grohl's unhappiness is due to the fact that not all of his work is used. Slash was a lot worse imo, waiting for years, letting people to think he played the guitars on Black or White and after Michael's death calling the guitar riff - which he played twice live btw - "gay".
Click to expand...

Gay as in joyful? :D

I am not defending Slash's misuse of the word "gay". But honestly I don't think that it means that he is homophobic because he used that word. It's just (politically incorrect) slang.
 
He called it "gay" because he doesn't like the fact he played it live twice but some other dude can be heard on the album and not him. For him that's so "gay" to live with. :D
 
:D

Dropping word 'gay' from lyrics of popular children's song riles folks in Australia
Published: Thursday, September 02, 2010, 3:08 AM Updated: Thursday, September 02, 2010, 3:23 AM
By Associated Press

View full sizeRob Griffith / Associated Press
A popular song about an Australian Kookaburra, above, is causing controversy after a Australian school principal asked students to stop using the word "gay" when singing the classic children's campfire song, trying to keep the kids from laughing.
Kristen Gelineau / Associated Press

SYDNEY -- An Australian school principal has asked students to stop using the word "gay" when singing a classic children's song, but said today no offense was intended -- he was simply trying to keep the kids from laughing.

Principal Garry Martin of Le Page Primary School in Melbourne said he instructed students to substitute the line "Fun your life must be" for the original "Gay your life must be" when singing "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree." The song about a native Australian bird is a favorite around campfires from New Zealand to Canada.
Martin said he was playing a recording of the song for the students about a month ago when the line "gay your life must be" produced a flurry of giggles throughout the classroom. Some of the students use the word "gay" as a schoolyard taunt, he said, but don't understand its true meaning. And so, to calm them down, he told them to swap in the word "fun" for "gay."
"It wasn't misplaced political correctness, it wasn't homophobia, there was nothing really calculated in doing it," he told the Associated Press. "I could've stopped the whole class and gone into a very caring, supportive explanation of gay being quite a reasonable choice in lifestyle that some people make, but I was only talking with 7- and 8-year-olds and I think that sort of thing is better explained more fully with parents."
His decision erupted into a controversy, he said, after one of the students told his parents about Martin's change to the song. Word then spread from the parents to friends to the local newspaper, which ran a story -- and Martin found himself being bombarded with angry e-mails.
"Some think I'm the devil incarnate," he said.
Crusader Hillis, CEO of the gay and lesbian advocacy group The Also Foundation, didn't go that far -- but he did call the lyrical swap an overreaction.
"It sends a signal to people that just because a word has two meanings, that one of those meanings is unacceptable and that's really putting us backwards," Hillis said. "Even if it's done for good intentions because 'gay' is being used in schoolyards as a slur, I think they need to use the word as a conversation rather than banning it."
Martin said his decision was a mistake made with the best of intentions, and he plans to speak to the students about how different words hold different meanings across generations.
He also plans to ask students to sing the original version of the song.
But, he added, "We might not sing it that often now."
© 2012 cleveland.com. All rights reserved.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
This has already been discussed I think.
Click to expand...

Not in my presence -_-

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Too late. I can't get it out of my mind. :D
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was going to post :D

But seriously Ivy, do you want us to forget that you said 1/2 days or want us to forget all about it?
Please, get cho astute person here and explain it.
[youtube]c5mf1tJu6wM&feature=related[/youtube]
:D
 
'Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree' ...I used to song that in school when I was little ...I haven't heard of that song in ages! :rofl:
 
Arklove said:
Yes...yes I did...with insects and homosapiens..:beee:
Click to expand...

Arklove's version of the song (vowels don't have major importance) :D :

Kakabirra soothes on the yield game through.
Marry, marry (king) kong if the bash as ho.
Leaf, Kakabirra,
Leaf, Kakabirra,
Guy your loaf must boo.
Kakabirra soothes on the yield game through,
Oughting all the gun shops ho can sue.
Step, Kakabirra,
Step, Kakabirra,
Love same there far moe.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Arklove's version of the song (vowels don't have major importance) :D :Kakabirra soothes on the yield game through.Marry, marry (king) kong if the bash as ho.Leaf, Kakabirra,Leaf, Kakabirra,Guy your loaf must boo.Kakabirra soothes on the yield game through,Oughting all the gun shops ho can sue.Step, Kakabirra,Step, Kakabirra,Love same there far moe.
Click to expand...
I dofenitely thonk it sionds batter thes woy :D
 
lucilla said:
But seriously Ivy, do you want us to forget that you said 1/2 days or want us to forget all about it?
Please, get cho astute person here and explain it.
:D
Click to expand...

ahaha sure. I knew that Taj Jackson would respond to our Q&A and I had included questions about Cascio songs. I assumed his answers would give something to discuss on this thread. that's why I wrote that. Now that I've seen his answers (and you'll see it in 7 + hours) I don't think it will bring much to the table - in regards to this topic. That's why I wrote "forget what I said yesterday". That's all.
 
ivy said:
ahaha sure. I knew that Taj Jackson would respond to our Q&A and I had included questions about Cascio songs. I assumed his answers would give something to discuss on this thread. that's why I wrote that. Now that I've seen his answers (and you'll see it in 7 + hours) I don't think it will bring much to the table - in regards to this topic. That's all.
Click to expand...

Ok, now as far as I am concerned, forget what I have just said in this very post. :D
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Gay as in joyful? :D
Click to expand...

You seem pretty 'gay' today, Bumper :D

ivy said:
ahaha sure. I knew that Taj Jackson would respond to our Q&A and I had included questions about Cascio songs. I assumed his answers would give something to discuss on this thread. that's why I wrote that. Now that I've seen his answers (and you'll see it in 7 + hours) I don't think it will bring much to the table - in regards to this topic. That's why I wrote "forget what I said yesterday". That's all.
Click to expand...

I knew it was about Taj! :D
And yes, I was hoping something new from him too. :/
 
I'm so tired of waiting for something to happen. I urge Eddie Cascio and Jason Malachi to confess guilt so we can move on.
 
He'll just have repeated what he has already said.
The Jacksons don't care, the only thing they would have to do (does apply to everyone who wants to contest the Cascio songs) is to convince a court that there's insufficient validation that the lead vocals are sung by Michael Jackson. That's all they would have to do (and that's the only thing all those comparison clips would be helpful for as they - at least - raise the question of authenticity). This is not as hard as many doubters are actually thinking. To convince the court you neither need to be rich (you can request legal aid) nor do you need an export report. Being rich (like The Jacksons) and having the opportunity (like The Jacksons) to get an expert report would certainly make it easier but both isn't necessary.
If the court is convinced that their claim is substantial for legal reasons, the judge would rule that the copyright owners (The Michael Jackson Estate / Eddie Cascio / James Porte) have to convince the court by showing what they have to justify why they have registered Michael Jackon as (co-)songwriter, (co-)producer and performer and why these songs are marketed as Michael Jackson recordings. They would then bring in their US Copyright Office registrations, forensic experts, engineers etc.

But I guess, the Jacksons don't want to a lawsuit they can't win.
And among the doubters I haven't seen people who are objectively enough to don't get labelled as "the crazy MJ fan" because you can't do it by giving free rein to one's rage. There's no evidence that suggest these songs are the result of a fraud. There are observations that question their authenticity and customers have the right to demand disclosure of the facts that The Michael Jackson Estate / Eddie Cascio / James Porte have produced.
 
Korgnex said:
He'll just have repeated what he has already said.
The Jacksons don't care, the only thing they would have to do (does apply to everyone who wants to contest the Cascio songs) is to convince a court that there's insufficient validation that the lead vocals are sung by Michael Jackson. That's all they would have to do (and that's the only thing all those comparison clips would be helpful for as they - at least - raise the question of authenticity). This is not as hard as many doubters are actually thinking. To convince the court you neither need to be rich (you can request legal aid) nor do you need an export report. Being rich (like The Jacksons) and having the opportunity (like The Jacksons) to get an expert report would certainly make it easier but both isn't necessary.
If the court is convinced that their claim is substantial for legal reasons, the judge would rule that the copyright owners (The Michael Jackson Estate / Eddie Cascio / James Porte) have to convince the court by showing what they have to justify why they have registered Michael Jackon as (co-)songwriter, (co-)producer and performer and why these songs are marketed as Michael Jackson recordings. They would then bring in their US Copyright Office registrations, forensic experts, engineers etc.

But I guess, the Jacksons don't want to a lawsuit they can't win.
And among the doubters I haven't seen people who are objectively enough to don't get labelled as "the crazy MJ fan" because you can't do it by giving free rein to one's rage. There's no evidence that suggest these songs are the result of a fraud. There are observations that question their authenticity and customers have the right to demand disclosure of the facts that The Michael Jackson Estate / Eddie Cascio / James Porte have produced.
Click to expand...

And how do you convince the court? By saying "I don't hear Michael?" Or by providing subjective experts reports who would only contradict other experts? As long as there are no traces, there are no proofs, hence the court can't be convinced only by the claims.
 
This is not possibly to answer from a distance but roughly speaking you need to point out what is all wrong with the voice in an objective way. points everyone can agree on. things that can be contested. no subjective fan stories. You don't need experts in this stage. Once the accused reply, then it's time for the experts unless what they state cannot be contested.
 
Korgnex said:
This is not possibly to answer from a distance but roughly speaking you need to point out what is all wrong with the voice in an objective way. points everyone can agree on. things that can be contested. no subjective fan stories. You don't need experts in this stage. Once the accused reply, then it's time for the experts unless what they state cannot be contested.
Click to expand...

Believe me, even with experts analyses it wouldn't be sufficient for the simple reason that the Estate (representing MJ) recognize those songs as his. Which means that going to court and claiming that those songs are not MJ, is just as saying that MJ didn't sing on the album BAD when he was alive and asking MJ to prove it was him.
 
lucilla said:
I knew it was about Taj! :D
And yes, I was hoping something new from him too. :/
Click to expand...

btw I wasn't trying to be mysterious. I just don't like to give promises (such as We'll have Q&A tomorrow) until I actually have it in my hands. That's why I was being vague about it.

Willy said:
I'm so tired of waiting for something to happen. I urge Eddie Cascio and Jason Malachi to confess guilt so we can move on.
Click to expand...

And open themselves to multi-million fraud lawsuits and loss of their current jobs (Malachi who happens to be a deputy sheriff). I wouldn't personally wait for confession when there's serious consequences of "confessing".

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
And how do you convince the court? By saying "I don't hear Michael?" Or by providing subjective experts reports who would only contradict other experts? As long as there are no traces, there are no proofs, hence the court can't be convinced only by the claims.
Click to expand...

Korgnex said:
This is not possibly to answer from a distance but roughly speaking you need to point out what is all wrong with the voice in an objective way. points everyone can agree on. things that can be contested. no subjective fan stories. You don't need experts in this stage. Once the accused reply, then it's time for the experts unless what they state cannot be contested.
Click to expand...

Convincing a court means you show the judge that there's a legit question at hand that needs a jury to decide about.

Korgnex is right that filing a lawsuit is not that hard. Have you read the "interesting read" that I posted in Trial's section? This woman goes to court and says that Michael is stalking her wherever she goes, put a GPS in her car a keylogger on her computer, causes electrical surges, controls commercials, calls her and hung up and so on. Yes you can even file lawsuits for such ridiculous claims. What's more relevant is that the court spends close 1.5 years to determine if there's a case there. Any logical person can see that what she claims Michael did is virtually impossible for him to do, yet the court spent 1.5 years to see if she deserves her day in court. They ask the woman for example why she thinks Michael Jackson is calling her house and hung up on her. She has nothing, she admits that she has never seen Michael around or have any information about the caller's identity and says that she simply believes it to be Michael. Michael's camp uses an objective approach they get experts to examine her car for a hidden GPS, her computer for a keylogger and pay for her to see a psychologist. Obviously nothing turns out and it's found out that she has paranoia issues. The case gets thrown out.

This is a good example of how easy it's to file a lawsuit and how the courts will evaluate it for quite some time even though the claims seems to be outrageous. However the only way that lawsuit will see inside the courtroom and a jury is to make sure that you have something more than a belief.
 
ivy said:
Convincing a court means you show the judge that there's a legit question at hand that needs a jury to decide about.

Korgnex is right that filing a lawsuit is not that hard. Have you read the "interesting read" that I posted in Trial's section? This woman goes to court and says that Michael is stalking her wherever she goes, put a GPS in her car a keylogger on her computer, causes electrical surges, controls commercials, calls her and hung up and so on. Yes you can even file lawsuits for such ridiculous claims. What's more relevant is that the court spends close 1.5 years to determine if there's a case there. Any logical person can see that what she claims Michael did is virtually impossible for him to do, yet the court spent 1.5 years to see if she deserves her day in court. They ask the woman for example why she thinks Michael Jackson is calling her house and hung up on her. She has nothing, she admits that she has never seen Michael around or have any information about the caller's identity and says that she simply believes it to be Michael. Michael's camp uses an objective approach they get experts to examine her car for a hidden GPS, her computer for a keylogger and pay for her to see a psychologist. Obviously nothing turns out and it's found out that she has paranoia issues. The case gets thrown out.

This is a good example of how easy it's to file a lawsuit and how the courts will evaluate it for quite some time even though the claims seems to be outrageous. However the only way that lawsuit will see inside the courtroom and a jury is to make sure that you have something more than a belief.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I was rather talking from my experience here in Europe. Something like that would be unthinkable here. I dared to assume that it was a bit similar in the U.S.
 
ivy said:
And open themselves to multi-million fraud lawsuits and loss of their current jobs (Malachi who happens to be a deputy sheriff). I wouldn't personally wait for confession when there's serious consequences of "confessing".
Click to expand...

I know, I know. I wasn't being serious. I just want this thing to end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top