Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

kreen;3619714 said:
The reused melody from You Are Not Alone in “All I Need” is not from the original song : it’s Burt Bacharach’s little musical homage to a song he maybe liked himself. As for the other melodies that reappear, Eddie Cascio and James Porte wrote the songs, and they’re obviously big MJ fans, and tried to write music that sounded like MJ music. One way to do that is to include musical references to earlier songs. MJ himself was not above that : “Cry” is a poor man’s MITM; People of the World is a rewrite of Heal the World, the ad-libs at the end of Heaven can Wait are similar to those at the end of Lady in My Life, and MJ rewrote “SYBDTTG” as “Lovely one” and DSTYGE.
Click to expand...
You think so? I just listened to both songs to see if I missed something (how could I miss THAT?..:D), but they sounded nothing alike IMO. And wasn't Cry written by R. Kelly?

About that Queen documentary: I saw it and loved it. Totally worth watching every minute. Interesting to hear about their struggles as a beginning band, the bad managing which left them pennyless, the idea's behind the songs, the interaction between the members, and I can go on and on..
 
kreen said:
Yes, and I'm proud to say I realized there was no hoax after all. Imagine still believing in a hoax more than a year after the fact, when even the Jacksons and John McClain have realized the songs are perfectly authentic.
Click to expand...

I guess I'd stop believing in a hoax too if I decide to go with what 'officials' say rather than what I hear...Sorry, we're not all that gullible and won't simply just accept something as 'fact' when there is actually no proof at all and because others tell us what we're listening to...
 
kreen said:
I just thought of something else : all of the Cascio songs must have been presented to MJ in their original versions, with James Porte singing lead. So when MJ sang the songs, he may have just replicated James Porte's delivery, which may have also influenced his style and everything. That also is common in music, where you compare a demo and the final version and see the final singer copied the original singer in ways he wouldn't have if he had been the first singer.
Click to expand...

If Michael Jackson listened to a demo and simply copied the original's style, would he be considered one of the most creative and talented vocalists in music history?

Yes, I agree with you that many vocalists would simply do what they are asked to do and/or just copied the style of the demo. But, the Michael Jackson we are all fans of would most likely looking for ways to improve, ways to make the songs his own and pour in his emotions. That's the Michael Jackson I remember. That's the Michael Jackson I miss.

R. Kelly's YANA cannot hold a candle to Michael's version. Fall Again is alreay excellent the way it was sung the first time.

It seems that you are willing to believe that Michael could be quite mediocre if he didn't try hard. And I, of course, understand he's not perfect all the time. But then, I wonder was there any time in his career that he was that mediocre in sessions other than the Cascio basement?
 
Chamife said:
About that Queen documentary: I saw it and loved it. Totally worth watching every minute. Interesting to hear about their struggles as a beginning band, the bad managing which left them pennyless, the idea's behind the songs, the interaction between the members, and I can go on and on..
Click to expand...

Chamife, I salute you! :D
 
kreen said:
Tell me, do these comparisons have any scientific value, or are they basically subjective? If I told you I don't hear what you hear, and find them not convincing at all, what would -- could -- you say?
Click to expand...

Neither do the forensic analysis have any scientific value without having compared them to the soundalikes.
 
love is magical said:
If Michael Jackson listened to a demo and simply copied the original's style, would he be considered one of the most creative and talented vocalists in music history?

Yes, I agree with you that many vocalists would simply do what they are asked to do and/or just copied the style of the demo. But, the Michael Jackson we are all fans of would most likely looking for ways to improve, ways to make the songs his own and pour in his emotions. That's the Michael Jackson I remember. That's the Michael Jackson I miss.

R. Kelly's YANA cannot hold a candle to Michael's version. Fall Again is alreay excellent the way it was sung the first time.

It seems that you are willing to believe that Michael could be quite mediocre if he didn't try hard. And I, of course, understand he's not perfect all the time. But then, I wonder was there any time in his career that he was that mediocre in sessions other than the Cascio basement?



I really wish you can stop making assumptions for people who genuinely enjoy Invincible. Invincible, as a matter of fast, is the album I reach out the most. On the other hand, I seldomly touch Off the Wall. So, I simply enjoy the style of Invincible. I'm not going to pretend that Privacy and Cry are my favorite Michael Jackson songs. But, I strongly disagree with you that they are "poor man's anything." Each to his own.

You know your argument works both way. You said people who think the Cascio songs suck have prejudice against the song. Meanwhile, I can also say that people who think the Cascio songs are at par of Michael Jackson's standards are desperate for more and more unreleased materails that they brainwash themselves in believing the overly produced songs are great. Let's not go there.
Click to expand...

The irony is that they did rip off his own songs.
 
Arklove said:
I guess I'd stop believing in a hoax too if I decide to go with what 'officials' say rather than what I hear...Sorry, we're not all that gullible and won't simply just accept something as 'fact' when there is actually no proof at all and because others tell us what we're listening to...
Click to expand...

Yep, when the officials repeat something, even if you don't see it or hear it, they are right.

It's like the stroy with Chuck Norris. If you have a bill of 5$ and Chuck Norris has a bill of 5$ too, well Chuck Norris has more than you.


p.s. Sorry for multiple posts
 
^^I swear I'll one day go to Montereaux and take a picture with Freddie's statue. :D
 
kreen said:
Bottom line is, if the conspiracy you allege had really taken place, you'd be holding a LOT more evidence in your hands that the pronunciation of a single word in a song.
Click to expand...
Come on kreen, don't act as if people have only talked about the pronunication of a single word. You know much better than that.

As for people saying the Cascio songs suck, I'd just like to reiterate that if the exact same songs had come out on Invincible, many of you would be praising them, in the same way you manage to praise material like "Privacy" or "Cry". I can absolutely imagine fans defending "Monster" as a cool uptempo number and "All I Need" as something different and mature from MJ. Many people's prejudice against the Cascios and theirs songs means they'll never admit to them having any quality, even just as songs, whoever sings them.
Click to expand...
Would they sound better than they do now if MJ was actually singing them? Yes, certainly - as he had the skills to elevate bland material to a higher level and still make it sound nice. But it would not change the fact that I think the songs overall are average at best (and very weak for MJ's level).

kreen said:
I just thought of something else : all of the Cascio songs must have been presented to MJ in their original versions, with James Porte singing lead. So when MJ sang the songs, he may have just replicated James Porte's delivery, which may have also influenced his style and everything. That also is common in music, where you compare a demo and the final version and see the final singer copied the original singer in ways he wouldn't have if he had been the first singer.
Click to expand...
Michael has recorded several songs in the past that were written by others, which he heard in demo form first. In some cases (e.g., Fall Again), we have even heard MJ's own demo version of these songs. Did he ever sound like a different person to you?

I don't know about you, but I never thought that Human Nature on my Thriller cd sounded like Steve Pocaro, or got the feeling that I was listening to Siedah Garrett sing lead on Man in the Mirror.

Also, have you ever heard James Porte aka Bobby Ewing sing? He sounds nothing like the guy on the Cascio tracks, imo.

And finally, I must say: you mock the lack of evidence on the doubters' side, but are basing your own opinion on assumptions like this?

kreen said:
Tell me, do these comparisons have any scientific value, or are they basically subjective? If I told you I don't hear what you hear, and find them not convincing at all, what would -- could -- you say?
Click to expand...
I would say that I find it incomprehensible that you do not hear that they sound the same. With that being said, we all know that these kinds of comparisons might not be acceptable in a court of law and that they are not conclusive evidence. But it goes both ways: what exactly is the scientific value of your assumptions? Or the Estate's statement? If I tell you that I don't hear what you hear, and that I do not find that statement convincing at all, what would -- could -- YOU say?

kreen said:
Yes, and I'm proud to say I realized there was no hoax after all. Imagine still believing in a hoax more than a year after the fact, when even the Jacksons and John McClain have realized the songs are perfectly authentic.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Jermaine in the exclusive MJJC Q&A earlier this year:

MJJC: Do you still feel strongly against the Cascio tracks? If so then do you or any other family member's plan to make issue with any future MJ albums that include any more Cascio tracks?

Jermaine Jackson: For now, I'll say what I've always said on this issue: when has Michael's music and voice ever been released with a question mark over it, as to whether it's 100% him? I think the truth will come out one day but no, that first album is not 100% Michael and no one can talk to me about the authentic sound of my own brother's voice.
Click to expand...
 
T.N.A. said:
^^I swear I'll one day go to Montereaux and take a picture with Freddie's statue. :D
Click to expand...

You didn't precise which Freddie.

1000965.jpg
 
kreen said:
I just thought of something else : all of the Cascio songs must have been presented to MJ in their original versions, with James Porte singing lead. So when MJ sang the songs, he may have just replicated James Porte's delivery, which may have also influenced his style and everything. That also is common in music, where you compare a demo and the final version and see the final singer copied the original singer in ways he wouldn't have if he had been the first singer.
Click to expand...

actually this was something that stuck in my head after a talk with Birchey.
 
When MJ sings Come Together, he doesn't sound like John Lennon, he sounds like himself... Something must be wrong then.

[youtube]f-KRyys8w_8&feature=fvst[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
If you had intensively studied phonetics and phonology for several years, you'd quickly understand that there is no conspiracy nor that our minds are playing tricks on us when it comes to hearing some oddities in the voice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't born yesterday either : I'm a professional linguist, I've worked as a translator for 10 years, and studied phonology in University. So don't try to play the Einstein card here.

Whatever evidence you have, if it is as strong as you say, and if your credentials are so impressive, build a case and submit it to court.
 
love is magical said:
If Michael Jackson listened to a demo and simply copied the original's style, would he be considered one of the most creative and talented vocalists in music history?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much all he did for "Butterflies".

You have to remember that MJ in 2007 sitting in a basement studio with a couple of 20-year-old amateurs is not exactly MJ in 1982, at the top of his game, recording "Thriller". We have to remember that MJ suffered an artistic decline in his later years. Bad-era MJ wouldn't have produced an album like Invincible, where he barely wrote two songs and let a million outside producers and writers do the heavy lifting.
 
Pentum said:
MY post for tonight:

http://soundcloud.com/pentummj/444-1

Oh, and this is a part in Monster where I cannot undestand how anyone can even think is Michael. ABSOLUTELY NO power or grittyness in the voice, with the "seeeee" beeing alien: http://soundcloud.com/pentummj/555-1
Click to expand...


Well actually it may be MJ because, according to some people's explanation here, Mike may as well have heard Jason Malachi sing, loved his style and was influenced by him and that's why the Cascio songs sound more like Malachi than MJ. Mike was obviously influenced by Malachi, that is the explanation.

Everything is possible beside the fact that those songs are just sung by another dude because hey, the beloved Eddie would do that to his friend,Sony wouldn't do that to his artist and the Estate wouldn't do that to the man that their represent.
 
SoCav said:
What are you talking about?

Jermaine in the exclusive MJJC Q&A earlier this year:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but where's the lawsuit, Jermaine? Of course they'll talk, like they always do, but you can be 100 % assured that if they really had good reason to think the songs are fake, they'd be suing everybody involved faster than it takes to say "Tito!" I mean, they sue over trivial matters where they have no chance of winning, but they wouldn't sue over such a major hoax when they have a huge chance of winning? Not the Jacksons I know...
 
kreen said:
That's pretty much all he did for "Butterflies".

You have to remember that MJ in 2007 sitting in a basement studio with a couple of 20-year-old amateurs is not exactly MJ in 1982, at the top of his game, recording "Thriller". We have to remember that MJ suffered an artistic decline in his later years. Bad-era MJ wouldn't have produced an album like Invincible, where he barely wrote two songs and let a million outside producers and writers do the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

Completely subjective. YOU have to remember to NOT speak for everyone...Stop putting everyone in the same basket because you have some sort of problem with Invincible.

Artistic decline? Pray tell. Is Invincible your only explanation as to why you feel he had declined artistically?
 
kreen said:
Yeah, but where's the lawsuit, Jermaine? Of course they'll talk, like they always do, but you can be 100 % assured that if they really had good reason to think the songs are fake, they'd be suing everybody involved faster than it takes to say "Tito!" I mean, they sue over trivial matters where they have no chance of winning, but they wouldn't sue over such a major hoax when they have a huge chance of winning? Not the Jacksons I know...
Click to expand...
So he is saying that the tracks are fake, but does not really believe it? Why would he say that then?
 
Last edited:
kreen said:
Yeah, I wasn't born yesterday either : I'm a professional linguist, I've worked as a translator for 10 years, and studied phonology in University. So don't try to play the Einstein card here.

Whatever evidence you have, if it is as strong as you say, and if your credentials are so impressive, build a case and submit it to court.
Click to expand...

Leave Einstein alone, I never claimed I was playing any Einstein card inhere.

Well, for more than a year now I have been desperately looking forward to exchanging opinions with a linguist. I am sorry, but I haven't detected in your posts anything that is related to the linguistics, but just self-coined theories how our minds are playing tricks on us.
 
SoCav said:
So he is saying that the tracks are fake, but does not really believe it? Why would he say that then?
Click to expand...

Cuz apparently kreen can read the minds of others. That's what he's been doing throughout this thread :D
 
kreen said:
That's pretty much all he did for "Butterflies".

You have to remember that MJ in 2007 sitting in a basement studio with a couple of 20-year-old amateurs is not exactly MJ in 1982, at the top of his game, recording "Thriller". We have to remember that MJ suffered an artistic decline in his later years. Bad-era MJ wouldn't have produced an album like Invincible, where he barely wrote two songs and let a million outside producers and writers do the heavy lifting.
Click to expand...

Again, each to their own. To you, Invincible is a product produced during Michael's artistic decline. To me, Invincible is a mastepiece that is ahead of its time. I have said time and time again that Invincible is the album I listen to the most. BAD is a great album, but it doesn't intrigue me the way Invincible does. In my opinon, Dangerous and HIStory are the pinnacles of Michael's career. So, I disagree with you that Thriller is Michael's peak. In terms of popularity, probably yes, but not in terms of artistry.

For me, the number of producers working on an album doesn't matter. For instance, I don't care if a director is also the screenplay writer, the photographer, the producer and the actor or if he shares the directing credits with others. It doesn't mean the director is in "artistic decline" if he decides to get ideas and inputs from others. Why equate the number of songs penned by Michael soley himself to degree of artistic ability? So, in order to prove that he's still an artist, he had to release an album in which most songs had to be written and produced by himself? I guess most artists out there must be in artistic decline now because most of them have help from outside producers.

Rodney Jerkins expressed how much Michael Jackson pushed him when he produced the album. So, pushing and challenging your collaborators is not considered "heavy lifting"? Pushing others to do the best that they can possibly do is an art in itself. Invincible would not be the Invincible that I enjoy and adore if Michael Jackson was not involved in the studio. I truly believe that.

I don't know. If Michael Jackson was the kind of vocalist and artist that you portrayed him to be, that he's an vocalist who copied the original demo without putting in his own vocal characters, that he's an artist who started experiencing artistic decline after BAD, then I wouldn't spend so much of my time on discussing him.

McCartney is still hailed as one of the best artists of all times despite the fact that he hasn't had one good album out in ages. Argurably, his best works are the works that he collaborated with Lennon. Nobody dare to use the term "artistic decline" on McCartney. In Michael's case, he's experiencing artistic decline after BAD as if Dangerous, HIStory and Invincible are unworthy.
 
Nobody stays at the top foverer, and all artists go through phases of creativity and inspiration. If MJ had lived, maybe he would have produced another "Thriller", but we'll never know.

MJ, as an entertainer, has had peaks and valleys. I mean, MJ on stage in 1988 during the Bad tour is not the same MJ as the one who lip-synchs the "Off the Wall Medley" during the HIStory tour. And MJ in the eighties, who was so prolific that he would often just give hit songs to other artists because he had material coming out of his ears, is not the same artist as MJ circa 2001, who relied on outside producers for 14 of the 16 Invincible songs.

I mean, no one but MJ could have come up with something like "Centipede", but "Heaven can Wait" could have been on any RnB singer's album.
 
kreen said:
Nobody stays at the top foverer, and all artists go through phases of creativity and inspiration. If MJ had lived, maybe he would have produced another "Thriller", but we'll never know.

MJ, as an entertainer, has had peaks and valleys. I mean, MJ on stage in 1988 during the Bad tour is not the same MJ as the one who lip-synchs the "Off the Wall Medley" during the HIStory tour. And MJ in the eighties, who was so prolific that he would often just give hit songs to other artists because he had material coming out of his ears, is not the same artist as MJ circa 2001, who relied on outside producers for 14 of the 16 Invincible songs.

I mean, no one but MJ could have come up with something like "Centipede", but "Heaven can Wait" could have been on any RnB singer's album.
Click to expand...

Wow...
 
kreen said:
The vibrato is probably electronically-enhanced somehow. As for the accent and the pronunciation, I think a lot of that is your mind playing tricks on you, and also selective hearing.
Click to expand...

This is once again insulting. You are insulting my intelligence by presuming that it is my mind playing tricks on me. You do this to avoid addressing the issue. And there must be a hell of a lot of people imagining the same thing. Now why would they electronically enhance the vibrato? What would making it sound like that possibly serve?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top