Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Korgnex said:
By the way...





And he calls himself a "journalist"...

Kudos to Damien Shields and TPIMaster for helping Charles Thompson to convince himself he would have seen "the voice analyses" and even lying about it in the eyes of the public!
Click to expand...

Even if voice analysis was to be done on acapella versions, were they the original versions turned acapella? If so, the analysis is flawed. Anyone who says we can just get a musicologist to compare Malachi and the Cascio songs on produced music that was made acapella would not have a wholey credible solution. To do a pure voice analysis, we would need MJ acapella, Malachi acapella, and the songs before work was done on them. Otherwise we will get a lot of "The voice is more similar to Jason than to MIchael." This doesn't hold up legally. We would need Sony or the parties involved to give us these materials for an analysis. They will never comply with this.
 
Korgnex said:
I'll give you a hint: Doubters have claimed that they don't have anything to back up their claim it's Michael. So in that case, once the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused (and that is BEFORE you would even come up with a forensic assessment yourself), you'd see what they have to back up their claim it's Michael. THEN you have a foundation to achieve anything. And if you don't have it, then that's because they have irrefutable proof. Something the Jacksons have learnt months ago, that's why they won't do a thing about it.



Huh? You CANNOT be countersued for NOT knowing. You CANNOT qualify for "acting maliciously" when you DO NOT KNOW anything. And as a matter of fact you have not seen what they did to prove it's Michael.
Click to expand...

When will people learn that in this particular situation forensic assessment is a dead-end, not a proof.

And when people learn that absence of doubters' proof does not mean presence of believers' proof?

The Estate has the legal power to label a song as MJ's without needing to provide any proof.
 
Pentum said:
I'm asking this Charles Thomson, why we can't see this analysis he has seen. There's no reason to hide it.
Click to expand...
Ivy @ Charles Thomson: why not? Especially if you and other people feel strongly about this issue ? why not release it or take it a step further?

Charles Thomson @Ivy_MJJC: That's his decision to make.

17 Feb Charles Thomson ?
@Ivy_MJJC A friend who works as a producer in Europe had access to all the equipment. The analysis wasn't publicly released.
 
Korgnex said:
I'll give you a hint: Doubters have claimed that they don't have anything to back up their claim it's Michael. So in that case, once the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused (and that is BEFORE you would even come up with a forensic assessment yourself), you'd see what they have to back up their claim it's Michael. THEN you have a foundation to achieve anything. And if you don't have it, then that's because they have irrefutable proof. Something the Jacksons have learnt months ago, that's why they won't do a thing about it.
Click to expand...
When you file a claim against another party and you have the burden of proof, the side does not have to show all that they have to disprove what you say. You will get in front of the judge and he will say "Show me the proof you have that it is not Michael". They will show evidence that is inconclusive and does not prove anything legally. Case dismissed. Even if the judge thought there were some questions to be answered and proceeded, when you have nothing concrete, Sony wouldnot have to show much to obliterate any evidence you have and you left with nothing but wasted time. If all a person has is fanmade comparisons to prove fraud, that case won't stand up past filing.




Huh? You CANNOT be countersued for NOT knowing. You CANNOT qualify for "acting maliciously" when you DO NOT KNOW anything. And as a matter of fact you have not seen what they did to prove it's Michael.
Click to expand...


That is the whole point. Legally no one knows anything, therefore they cannot bring the lawsuit in the first place. And no one has seen all they claim they did to prove it was Michael, but we have a letter where the Estate laid out numerous things to verify the voice including musicologists and speaking to those to worked with Michael for years. Apparently for some, this was proof enough.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
ADKI, your comparison of Sneddon's legal actions and this debate is completely misplaced.

If I am not mistaken according to the Californian law it is enough to put someone's hand on someone's shoulder to be sued for sexual harassment. Michael holding Avrizo's hand backed by the Bashir's documentary was enough proof to sue MJ on the grounds of that ridiculous law, not to mention other claims.

In this very situation, NOBODY is accusing directly anyone of fraud; and that's the point that you are completely missing.
Here's what the doubters say: "we don't hear MJ". PERIOD.

Now, is it due to the fraud or our inability to recognize MJ we don't know. However, we did take the most convincing parts that sound like Jason and compared them with Jason. We didn't just simply say (like you in your earlier post) Monster = Let me let go, we actually put them side aside. Those who hear the similarities, well yeah they understand our point of view, those who don't, well they have other comparisons that we made in order to show where it ressembles Jason's voice.

Now if you one says you hear MJ all over the Cascio track, well be my guest, take any portion of it and put it side aside with any portion of a MJ's previous song and let's listen to those parts side aside. It should'nt be difficult since you hear MJ all over the song. I did it with various grits form different eras (except with the Cascio songs), and trhe ressemblance was absolutely identical, no matter his age. Now what prevents anyone to take any portion of the Cascio song and put it side aside with any portion of a MJ's previous song rather than just repeatig "I hear Michael".

What doubters ask the believers is much easier than filing a lawsuit, yet no one seems able to come up with such comparisons.
Click to expand...
Yeah about that... I seen many posts of people saying "It's not MJ", "The song is fake", "I'm sure Michael Jackson does not sing this song", "Eddie is a liar", etc.
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Yeah about that... I seen many posts of people saying "It's not MJ", "The song is fake", "I'm sure Michael Jackson does not sing this song", "Eddie is a liar", etc.
Click to expand...

backed with audio comparisons. How many audio comparisons have you shown?
 
ginvid said:
They will never comply with this.
Click to expand...

A judge can rule it... It would be even necessary for the claimant to make their own forensic assessment.


Oh no, you've just written what I have expected you to write. Why am I not surprised? You have a wrong image from how such a consumer fraud case would develop. No, you don't have to prove anything. As you say, it is CLEAR that you are UNABLE to prove anything in the first place. And that's what a judge would realize, too. Your task is to argue sufficient concerns over the possibility of a fraud. NOTHING ELSE. The judge can see that the burden of proof has to shift to the accused to allow the claimant to contest the defense.


@Bumper: Forensic assessments are the KEY to the whole issue.
And no, the Estate as well as any other natural or juristic person needs to provide evidence in order to register a copyright. And guess what? The Cascio tracks are not just labelled as Michael Jackson, they are registered with the US Copyright Office.
The information about what is necessary to register a work there is PUBLIC, Bumper. However I remember you are well aware of this.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
backed with audio comparisons. How many audio comparisons have you shown?
Click to expand...
I'm not the one doubting the songs am I ?


@Chamife Still guide vocals are nothing like the vocals that will end up in a record.
There's 2 different things, one to record vocals for a record and another to record ideas.
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
I'm not the one doubting the songs am I ?


@Chamife Still guide vocals are nothing like the vocals that will end up in a record.
There's 2 different things, one to record vocals for a record and another to record ideas.
Click to expand...
We should be able to detect them. I know you do, but I don't.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Does it matter. What's the use of repeating "I hear Michael" without backing your claim?
Click to expand...
Okay let's see I hear Michael Jackson on Monster from 00:00 - 5:06, Keep Your Head Up from 00:00 - 4:52, Breaking News from 00:00 - 4:15.

Hope it helps :)



@Chamife The same way you don't hear Michael we believers hear Michael.

But we are not going around saying "The song is a fake" or boycotting the album because of a doubt that Sony Music clarified.

If the songs were fake there's a good chance Sony would have to do a complete recall and refund everyone for the album so let's do the math $10.00 (retail price) X 2,500,000 = $25,000,000.00 just for 3 "Fake" songs, and the deal that Sony and MJ's estate signed was for $250,000,000.00 for 10 projects so they will lose 10% for just 3 "Fake" songs ?


Think about it how stupid would a record company be to do that ?
 
Last edited:
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Okay let's see I hear Michael Jackson on Monster from 00:00 - 5:06, Keep Your Head Up from 00:00 - 4:52, Breaking News from 00:00 - 4:15.

Hope it helps :)



@Chamife The same way you don't hear Michael we believers hear Michael.
Click to expand...

Nope it does not help.

We identified on the Cascio tracks MJ = MJ (copy pastes) and pointed out the parts that don't sound like MJ:

-accent (omission of the sound "t" in the words)
-vibrato
-snort
-falsetto
etc.

What I am asking you is to take any part of the Cascio song and put side a side with a similar previous song and show it to us. It should be extremely easy for you.
Then explain where you hear the same grit, vibrato, accent, snort, and so on.

Imagine if for 1600 pages doubters were repeating the same you were repeating "we don't hear MJ". There wouldn't be debate.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Nope it does not help.

We identified on the Cascio tracks MJ = MJ (copy pastes) and pointed out the parts that don't sound like MJ:

-accent (omission of the sound "t" in the words)
-vibrato
-snort
-falsetto
etc.

What I am asking you is to take any part of the Cascio song and put side a side with a similar previous song and show it to us. It should be extremely easy for you.
Then explain where you hear the same grit, vibrato, accent, snort, and so on.

Imagine if for 1600 pages doubters were repeating the same you were repeating "we don't hear MJ". There wouldn't be debate.
Click to expand...
I'll try to mash up 4 songs in one but I've never done this so it will take a while.

BTW do you know any programs I can use ?
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
What I am asking you is to take any part of the Cascio song and put side a side with a similar previous song and show it to us. It should be extremely easy for you.
Then explain where you hear the same grit, vibrato, accent, snort, and so on.
Click to expand...

Lol, these questions again.
What if... like... none of these songs sound the same?
Like... take MJ's New Jack Swing records and pretend they were the cascio songs. They sound waaaaay different than his earlier records, correct? (Not talking about the vocals now).

What he (and I) have been saying all along is that no matter where, we just hear MJ as the lead singer, it's that easy.
I could put KYHU and Slave To The Rhythm next to each other and tell you Same singer.
Seriously, such an annoying question, imo.
 
IvoDT said:
Lol, these questions again.
What if... like... none of these songs sound the same?
Like... take MJ's New Jack Swing records and pretend they were the cascio songs. They sound waaaaay different than his earlier records, correct? (Not talking about the vocals now).

What he (and I) have been saying all along is that no matter where, we just hear MJ as the lead singer, it's that easy.
I could put KYHU and Slave To The Rhythm next to each other and tell you Same singer.
Seriously, such an annoying question, imo.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. You actually can compare MJ's songs from different eras. For example I could compare Who Is It Vocals with Billie Jean, but not with Don't stop till you get enough. It is not a question of being the same singer, but of comparing the use of that singer's voice when it is comparable.

The same goes for other songs, if I am to compare MJ's songs, I'd compare vocals from for example Privacy and Why you wanna trip on me or Speed Demon, and not Privacy and The Lady in my life.

So no, the question is not annoying but pertinent.
 
ADKIc3mAnX said:
Are you forgetting that the vocals on the Cascio tracks were guide vocals, Frank confirmed that MJ was gonna record the final versions while on tour.
Click to expand...

So? Even if they are guide vocals they should still sound unquestionably like Michael. Every other demo or guide vocal sounds fine so why should these be different? Even MJ singing on a telephone at the start of (I Like) The Way You Love Me sounds unmistakeably MJ. There is no justifiable reason why the Cascio vocals should sound so strange regardless of whether they are guide vocals, demo vocals or otherwise.
 
Actually, the worse quality, the more it should sound like MJ (examples: Peterpanpyt recording where he talks etc in bad quality, but sounds like MJ. dom_uk recordings that sounds like MJ - bad quality).

Also, MJ doing guided vocals i.e not singing fully and just mumbling, will not change his voice. I've demostrated and compared the 1992 Dangerous rehearsals where MJ sings Stop the love VS TII Stop the love. You almost can't tell the difference between the voices. The only single thing is that in TII, his voice is a little deeper. (again, something missing from the cascio songs).
 
Pentum said:
Also, people who think HT is fake (that are MJ fans) clearly should not have their opinions respected. We have sheets with lyrics, people talking about the song's creation, we have demo clips of it, etc.
Click to expand...

Not everyone fan would be a die-hard fan like you or me, I think people should be given a pass for not knowing better. Remember no human being is perfect.

Pentum said:
I'm asking this Charles Thomson, why we can't see this analysis he has seen. There's no reason to hide it.
Click to expand...

wholeheartedly agree. It's the smoking gun you are looking for if indeed it's a professional vocal analysis.

ginvid said:
It is a bit childish for every sentence to be ended with "This is my opinion". If a person states that they think it is 100% Malachi, it is understood to be their opinion. I can say that I am 100% sure it is not totally Michael. Some people are giving their opinion just based on how they feel or what they hear not because of some external proof. (Although the comparisions may be the icing on the cake and may be a personal although not legal proof enough for some). Now for those who say they have concrete proof, point taken. :)
Click to expand...

I didn't say every sentence to be ended with "this is my opinion", that is indeed childish. But the reading of a statement should able to tell you if it's an opinion or being presented as fact. For example a sentence such as "I listened to the album, I don't believe the vocals to be Michael" is clearly an opinion and protected under first amendment. However a statement such as "EC faked the songs with JC" or "We have proof these are absolute fakes" going beyond the opinion freedom and being kinda like fact. That's problematic.

I also tried to say this does not include you personally because I see you write stuff like "no one can prove it's michael , no one can prove it's not michael". So this doesn't apply to you at all.

Chamife said:
Ivy @ Charles Thomson: why not? Especially if you and other people feel strongly about this issue ? why not release it or take it a step further?

Charles Thomson @Ivy_MJJC: That's his decision to make.

17 Feb Charles Thomson ?
@Ivy_MJJC A friend who works as a producer in Europe had access to all the equipment. The analysis wasn't publicly released.
Click to expand...

I call it a BS. :) Sorry but if you indeed had a professional vocal analysis that was strong and could be used in this debate, there's no need to hide it. It could also be used to challenge Sony et al. to show their hands - their own research. I'm betting that either the credentials of the producer , or the testing methods or how professional or strength of it is lacking.
 
Well guys, it turns out we were all wrong. It isn't Michael and it isn't Jason either. I've just been sent this video which reveals the true identity of the Cascio singer. This is pretty shocking.


[youtube]08JgK7gGLgc[/youtube]
 
StellaJackson said:
Well guys, it turns out we were all wrong. It isn't Michael and it isn't Jason either. I've just been sent this video which reveals the true identity of the Cascio singer. This is pretty shocking.


[youtube]08JgK7gGLgc[/youtube]
Click to expand...

So Harry Potter is the real singer of the Cascio songs.
 
^^ That guy has quite a vocal range, I just wish he would use the right one in the right places.
 
Charles Thompson is he not the same guy who called Michael a Mother f----- when he did not get a chance to met him? Said Michael was gay kept going on and on about Michael's hair being a wig like it was his only purpose in life was to state the oblvous and even went so far as to call Michael's children nordic in other words white. Same guy?
 
although I don't believe it there is a possibility that overprocessing CAN cause a vibrato to go all goaty,

listen to this remix of Always by Erasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KbOBSgKUxQ

Original version does not have this "goating"

That said, "All I Need" has substantially less goating yet I find that track to sound the most like Jason, especially if you take in the possibility the tracks were up-pitched. I think although something was done to the singer's voice (ie adjusting equalization or something to make the voice sharper and less "mellow") I still think it's not enough for it to "sound like" Michael.
 
O-Bee (Omer Bhatti) at Angelikson Studios where Michael Jackson recorded the Cascio songs




Thought you guys might want to see this.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
I call it a BS. :) Sorry but if you indeed had a professional vocal analysis that was strong and could be used in this debate, there's no need to hide it. It could also be used to challenge Sony et al. to show their hands - their own research. I'm betting that either the credentials of the producer , or the testing methods or how professional or strength of it is lacking.
Click to expand...
If you call it BS and that he never saw such thing - you will still believe Sony has proof it's Michael like they claimed they have? They just said it, never showed it. They also just said their analysis said it's MJ, but never showed it. And we need this - just as much as we need CT's analysis, if not even more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top