Michael - The Great Album Debate

[love is magical]

To me, the Cascio tracks do not sound "vintage" MJ. The kind of details and nuances that only Michael could do are absent. This post is not really about authenticity, but more about my observations and feelings when listening to Michael.

Quincy Jones said Michael had ass power - the patience that Michael had when recording and his willingness to spend time in the studio to improve the tracks. Unlike many other vocalists, Michael did not just come to the studio and lay down his vocals and leave. He did his own background vocals, sang harmonies, recorded sounds lilke sighs, moans, hiss, or whatever he could do with his mouth. His efforts show on the tracks. His tracks are like a very well-woven tapestry. As listener, I feel like I'm carassed and enveloped by his voice fully. It's not an overstatement to say Michael's voice is a musical instrument in itself. He used his voice very creataively. He's so much more than a great voice.

I seldomly hear any decent cover of a Michael Jackson song. The Glee covers are forgettable and uninspiring (my opinion). A Michael Jackson song is really that difficult to do. There are many great voices in the industry. But, I can hardly think of any other vocalist who can sing in such creative way. Only Stevie Wonder comes to mind.

To me, the Cascio tracks sound like shadow of vintage Michael. The more I listen to them, the more I find the songs lacking. I mean how can one compare a song that Teddy Riley completed within hours to the level of care and effort Michael and his team of collaborators provided. When Michael was just released, some critics praised the album and said they felt it's better that Michael Jackson was no longer around to second guess himself. As a reasult, the songs were better and more enjoyable. I see that kind of reviews to be blasphemy. It's sad to see how Michael Jackson's ability as a vocalist and musician is still so intentionally underrated.

Vintage Michael is like vintage wine, which is something precious and doesn't come by easily.

 

[OnirMJ]

So John Branca who knew Michael for the best part of thirty years.

Who was not only Michael's business associate but also his friend (Michael acted as best man at John's wedding).

He wouldn't know Michael's voice.

John Branca is a lawyer. He is probably very good at his job. Being a friend or best man doesn't mean anything here. He is not a musician, he is not a record producer and he is not hardcore MJ fan although he loves his music like 30 million other people. So, yes I would say that he doesn't know Michael's voice.

 

[mynameiscande1]

^ Another random person joining the thread not knowing anything at all about this. Bravo.

F.Y.I. Pentum I am not just some random person as you put it.

I have been a Michael Jackson fan for thirty years!

Which is probably longer than you have been born!

 

[Pentum]

F.Y.I. Pentum I am not just some random person as you put it.

I have been a Michael Jackson fan for thirty years!

Which is probably longer than you have been born!

Indeed!

But right now, you're still a random person to me. If you would care to at least read more in to this, or would have followed this debate from last year, you would not have said what you just said.

 

[teli-mj]

To me, the Cascio tracks do not sound "vintage" MJ. The kind of details and nuances that only Michael could do are absent. This post is not really about authenticity, but more about my observations and feelings when listening to Michael.

Quincy Jones said Michael had ass power - the patience that Michael had when recording and his willingness to spend time in the studio to improve the tracks. Unlike many other vocalists, Michael did not just come to the studio and lay down his vocals and leave. He did his own background vocals, sang harmonies, recorded sounds lilke sighs, moans, hiss, or whatever he could do with his mouth. His efforts show on the tracks. His tracks are like a very well-woven tapestry. As listener, I feel like I'm carassed and enveloped by his voice fully. It's not an overstatement to say Michael's voice is a musical instrument in itself. He used his voice very creataively. He's so much more than a great voice.

I seldomly hear any decent cover of a Michael Jackson song. The Glee covers are forgettable and uninspiring (my opinion). A Michael Jackson song is really that difficult to do. There are many great voices in the industry. But, I can hardly think of any other vocalist who can sing in such creative way. Only Stevie Wonder comes to mind.

To me, the Cascio tracks sound like shadow of vintage Michael. The more I listen to them, the more I find the songs lacking. I mean how can one compare a song that Teddy Riley completed within hours to the level of care and effort Michael and his team of collaborators provided. When Michael was just released, some critics praised the album and said they felt it's better that Michael Jackson was no longer around to second guess himself. As a reasult, the songs were better and more enjoyable. I see that kind of reviews to be blasphemy. It's sad to see how Michael Jackson's ability as a vocalist and musician is still so intentionally underrated.

Vintage Michael is like vintage wine, which is something precious and doesn't come by easily.

Oh, i love when critics discuss MJ's work. They are so biased and negatively directed towards Mike that the only thing that you can do when reading their reviews, is to laugh.

 

[love is magical]

@Bumper,you write:You know what I call insane? Bombing Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands innocent people including children under the pretext made by the officials that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. After killing a sea of people those very same officials came forward to say "oops we were wrong, there are no weapons of mass destruction, sorry".

You think, SONY or anyone else couldn't use the same excuse with this isnignificant scenario with some trivial songs to the public "oops, sorry, we didn't know"?


Hm that's a good muscled introduction to knock your audience down. AdkI is much younger than you Bumper, so give him space to go for his own thinking, he is not dumb.
You are intelligent, oh you are... but why is it that no matter which intelligent or (sometimes) muscled language you use... when you say "open your eyes AdkI", the only thing I can see, is nothing (but you maybe) and that bothers me. Every arrow you shoot in these posts, returns to his point of departure.

No one is saying anybody is dumb here. I don't know about you. If I think someone's post is so dumb, I wouldn't even want to dignify it by responding. The fact that we are all spending time here discussing and responding each other, sometimes point-by-point, show that we see each other as equal. Bumpy didn't just tell ADKI to shut up and listen to him, did he? Or, did Bumpy ever say something like "you just don't understand" or "you'll never get it"?

This is a heated conversation and has always be. Bumpy's tone is not the most harsh I have seen. So, I don't know why he's being singled out all the time for his so-called arrogance. I'm not ganging up for my buddy here because it's not necessary. Bumpy is more than capable to defend himself. I'm just voicing out my opinion, like everybody else.

The fact that ADKI is still engaging in this thread means he has the tolerance level for this kind of heated conversations. ADKI and Bumpy have opposite positions in this particular matter. But, when they get off this thread and talk on another thread, they can be very friendly with each others.

 

[SoCav]

Hey ADKI, I was wondering if you might still be willing to respond to this post? You urged doubters to read what that guy had to say. Some of us did and I am interested to see what your response to the points others and myself raised is.

 

[SoCav]

@Bumper,you write:You know what I call insane? Bombing Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands innocent people including children under the pretext made by the officials that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. After killing a sea of people those very same officials came forward to say "oops we were wrong, there are no weapons of mass destruction, sorry".

You think, SONY or anyone else couldn't use the same excuse with this isnignificant scenario with some trivial songs to the public "oops, sorry, we didn't know"?


Hm that's a good muscled introduction to knock your audience down. AdkI is much younger than you Bumper, so give him space to go for his own thinking, he is not dumb.
You are intelligent, oh you are... but why is it that no matter which intelligent or (sometimes) muscled language you use... when you say "open your eyes AdkI", the only thing I can see, is nothing (but you maybe) and that bothers me. Every arrow you shoot in these posts, returns to his point of departure.

If you are not convinced by Bumper's posts or if you do not like them, fair enough. Although I have the same opinion on these songs in general, I do not agree with everything Bumper says either. But I do not see what is wrong with his posts? This is a debate. People are trying to convince each other, or show each other their perspectives. That is reflected in the language they use. Perhaps it can be annoying to read at times, but that's just how discussions about very polarizing topics are, imo.

The way I see it, Bumper is not posting with the intention to show off with his intelligence, he is posting because this is a topic he is passionate about. He takes time out to read and respond to ADKI's post point by point. I personally do not see where he is being condescending at all.

On the other hand, I do think your post is a bit condescending to be honest, both to Bumper and ADKI. Bumper takes ADKI seriously as a discussion partner (rightfully so) by responding to his post, but you seem to imply that ADKI is 'too young' for this type of response apparently (why does age even matter in this debate?). And your response to Bumper seems totally ad hominem.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

ADKI, did my reply to your post offend you? If so, I am sorry mate. I hope you understand when I said to "open your eyes" that it was a figure of speech because as reported earlier not everyone agreed to have heard MJ's voice during the listening session.

I have nothing personal against you ADKI.

 

[Billyjeanplxiv]

oooooooo Nasty is Sta'kin us today

 

[Arklove]

oooooooo Nasty is Sta'kin us today

He's wai'in for one of us to f*ck up

 

[SoCav]

"All alone / I sit home by the phone / Wai'in for you, baby"

"Aaall alone / wi-shing on stars.. /Wai'in for you, to find me"

"One day in your life / When you find that you're always wai'in / For.. a love we used toooo share"

 

[T.N.A.]

Yo Nasty, a bunch of new Cascio snippets just leaked. Though I'd let you know about it...

Anyway, here's the link folks. If it's already down just PM me and I'll send them to you guys.

http://www.mediafire.com/?dk3852ewwqoj8oc

 

[Aniram]

In Say Say Say I hear "waiTin'"

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Yo Nasty, a bunch of new Cascio snippets just leaked. Though I'd let you know about it...

Anyway, here's the link folks. If it's already down just PM me and I'll send them to you guys.

http://www.mediafire.com/?dk3852ewwqoj8oc

:lmao:

 

[qbee]

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument. Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument. :read:

 

[SoCav]

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem".

It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

That's what I perceived to be going on here.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Hmm, that I did not think of. Now you've made me remember why I found those philosophy of logic lectures in high school so nerve-racking. :lol:

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument

That's what I perceived to be going on here.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Hmm, that I did not think of. Now you've made me remember why I found those philosophy of logic lectures in high school so nerve-racking. :lol:

Well,...

@Bumper,


Hm that's a good muscled introduction to knock your audience down. AdkI is much younger than you Bumper, so give him space to go for his own thinking, he is not dumb.
You are intelligent, oh you are... but why is it that no matter which intelligent or (sometimes) muscled language you use... when you say "open your eyes AdkI", the only thing I can see, is nothing (but you maybe) and that bothers me. Every arrow you shoot in these posts, returns to his point of departure.

 

[Pentum]

In Say Say Say I hear "waiTin'"

Yes, I assume SoCav was joking.

 

[SoCav]

Yes, I assume SoCav was joking.

Yeah, I was just messing around. I was listening to Someone in the Dark (mesmerizing vocals) right after I saw Arklove write 'wai'in', which prompted me to look for some more lyrics with the word 'waiting' in it and imagining them being sung as wai'in.

So I agree Aniram, MJ's pronunciation of course does not sound like wai'in at all, it generally sounds like something like 'way-ding' (and in Say Say Say, it almost sounds like 'wedding' - "ah wedding for you - baybeh" ).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Yeah, I was just messing around. I was listening to Someone in the Dark (mesmerizing vocals) right after I saw Arklove write 'wai'in', which prompted me to look for some more lyrics with the word 'waiting' in it and imagining them being sung as wai'in.

So I agree Aniram, MJ's pronunciation of course does not sound like wai'in at all, it generally sounds like something like 'way-ding' (and in Say Say Say, it almost sounds like 'wedding' - "ah wedding for you - baybeh" ).

No you didn't. You thought MJ pronounced it without "t".

 

[SoCav]

No you didn't. You thought MJ pronounced it without "t".

Stop stawkin my posts!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Stop stawkin my posts!

You mean stoCKing?

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

^The guy's explanations in the description are nothing new imo.

*'The songs were heavily processed.' I still challenge anyone to make an existing Michael vocal sound even remotely like the voice on the Cascio tracks using Melodyne. If it was all due to Melodyne, this should be possible, right?

*"Of course the unfinished vocal outtakes of a 47 year old MJ won't sound like the perfect final takes of a 27 year old MJ." Then why did Michael sound totally like himself in the TII rehearsals? Or on any demo of his we have ever heard, for that matter?

*"The vocals were recorded in a very basic home studio at the Cascio home with poor sound isolation. Different equipment/room means different sound quality." Then why does he sound completely fine on WBSS 2008? And why has he always sounded like himself in whatever kind of environment we heard him sing, such as here:

http://youtu.be/7LoLU2CcYb0?t=5m44s

*"Yes, his family has voiced their disbelief of it being sung by MJ, but how often were they involved in the actual recording and mixing process in the studio? They, like most people, probably only heard the perfect final drafts of his songs."
3T recorded with Michael in the past and Taryll was involved in this project.

*"Some are claiming that the voice on the song is Jason Malachi. Jason Malachi is a good impersonator and can replicate Mike's vocal techniques pretty well. However, there are many parts of this song where every other word is cut from a different take. If they hired Malachi, there would be no need to do this as he could've recorded those lines straight through."
How does he know? I can think of a myriad of potential reasons why they could not have recorded those lines straight through. How about: JM is a pretty bad singer (see his live performances), so they were forced to use several takes. Or: they recorded him several times and cut-and-pasted the parts where he sounded most like Michael? Or: JM only did a few rough takes. Who knows. In any case, I do not find this argument convincing whatsoever. It does not explain in any way why Jason Malachi's vocal characteristics are all over the song.

*"Nonetheless, having examined the acappella's waveform at length, I can say the entire song's lead vocals are sung in the same person's voice."
What is the guy even saying here? That there is only one lead vocalist on Breaking News? Or does he mean that it is all Michael? If the latter, with what other acapella did he compare the vocals? Without further details, this statement does not carry any weight whatsoever.

"I still challenge anyone to make an existing Michael vocal sound even remotely like the voice on the Cascio tracks using Melodyne. If it was all due to Melodyne, this should be possible, right?"

I would do that but I don't know how to use Melodyne or paste 2 vocals professionally.


"Then why did Michael sound totally like himself in the TII rehearsals? Or on any demo of his we have ever heard, for that matter?"

I think because of the equipment.


"Then why does he sound completely fine on WBSS 2008? And why has he always sounded like himself in whatever kind of environment we heard him sing, such as here:"

Hard to compare just seconds to minutes and the vocals for Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' were final vocals not guide/demo vocals.


"3T recorded with Michael in the past and Taryll was involved in this project."

I know he was involved that comment was not mine so I can't really challenge this one.


"How does he know? I can think of a myriad of potential reasons why they could not have recorded those lines straight through. How about: JM is a pretty bad singer (see his live performances), so they were forced to use several takes. Or: they recorded him several times and cut-and-pasted the parts where he sounded most like Michael? Or: JM only did a few rough takes. Who knows. In any case, I do not find this argument convincing whatsoever. It does not explain in any way why Jason Malachi's vocal characteristics are all over the song."

I have to agree with him on this one if they hired Jason Malachi why would the copy & pasting be needed?


"What is the guy even saying here? That there is only one lead vocalist on Breaking News? Or does he mean that it is all Michael? If the latter, with what other acapella did he compare the vocals? Without further details, this statement does not carry any weight whatsoever."

Not sure what he meant here.

BTW @SoCav Sorry I replied so late I been really busy lately.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

ADKI, did my reply to your post offend you? If so, I am sorry mate. I hope you understand when I said to "open your eyes" that it was a figure of speech because as reported earlier not everyone agreed to have heard MJ's voice during the listening session.

I have nothing personal against you ADKI.

No it didn't





@StellaJackson I said they were a bit off not strange

Like I mean if they were final vocals they would not be as they are, Frank Cascio said that MJ was going to record the Cascio songs during his This Is It tour so the vocals that they have are just ideas.

 

[SoCav]

BTW @SoCav Sorry I replied so late I been really busy lately.

No problem of course, thanks for replying. I'll get back to your post at a later time once I get the chance to properly read it.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

No problem of course, thanks for replying. I'll get back to your post at a later time once I get the chance to properly read it.

 

[StellaJackson]

Ah. Interesting.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Something that some people ignore or not knowing about Cascio tracks

Let me make a disclaimer first.If I offend somebody, I'm sorry,I don't mean to.

Too late! I am extremely offended by your post...



not.

I read some posts about Cascio tracks,and find some people just ignore some facts or just not know something.Let me give them to you.

1.Why did Michael(or whoever you want to call) sing a bit of Heaven Can Wait in Water?Did he try to Michaelish Water?

I call that a rip-off.

I don't know.Could you explain why Michael sang a bit of You Are Not Alone in Speechless(the verse:You Are always In My Heart)?Did he try to You Are Not Alonish Speechless?If we both don't know the reason,maybe we should make a call to heaven ask Michael.

Does the melody and the sentence "Heaven Can Wait" in "Water" sounds the same as in the song "Heaven Can Wait"? Yes.

Does the melody and the sentence "you are always in my heart" in "Speechless" sounds the same as in the song "You Are Not Alone"? No.

Does the reference to "Billie Jean" in "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' " sounds the same as in the song "Billie Jean"? No.

Does the melody "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' " sounds the same as "Billie Jean"? No.

As you can see, I spared you an expensive call to Heaven.

2.Did Eddie Cascio say there were no outtakes?No.This is what Cory Rooney told you.

Did Eddie Cascio say that there were outtakes? No. After appearing on Oprah and after the documentary on "Michael" the album it appears clear that he has nothing to show. Why would he hide it? To create controversy on purpose?

In fact,Cascios DO have a few outtakes.Listen to the Keep Your Head Up pre-mix snippet leaked last year.You can hear "hmmm" at start,that's one of the outtakes.

And you can hear loads of copy-pastes from previous songs such as "what about us" part from "Earth Song", screams from 2BAD/Ghosts video on "Monster" as well as snippets of "Threatened" also on "Monster", not to mention the sample of "You Rock My World" still present on "Breaking News". And the list goes on and on, among which the snippet "Heaven Can Wait" in "Water".

3.Who was "lying"?How did Cory Rooney and Taryll Jackson get into the listening session?Did they get there for the truth?Or for something else?Maybe for a song they worked together for Michael?

What else did they have as a proof that it is MJ other than the listening session? Nothing.

Go dig it.Look for the truth.

That's all we are asking, but Eddie is silent, the Estate is silent, SONY is silent. Just a vague report with unnamed forensics. No report, no Q&A session, no outtakes, no demos, no notes, no annotations, no ... nothing. All physical traces seem to be wiped out and the only remaining so called evidence by made by the unnamed forensics is kept hidden away from the public.

What are we supposed to do to dig it? Steal SONY's confidential infos that they are hiding from the public eye?

Cory Rooney said major listeners at that session nodded when he and Taryll spoke,so that meant they agreed with them.LMAO!They nodded just to let Cory and Taryll speak and not want to argue with them.Cory and Taryll just tried to convince producers that Cascio tracks were fake and warned them being sued.C and T acted like they knew everything about Michael,but just like Quincy Jones said before,Jacksons didn't have a clue about what producer and Michael did in the studio.

Were you present at that session? If not you cannot claim who nodded how and what for.

4.Let me give you a hint,who is in charge of Michael's musical legacy?Who is the guy apologized to Paul Anka when Paul said This Is It was stolen from him?who is the executive producer of Michael album?Where was he when fans wanted something from the estate to eliminate controversy?

When somebody resisted something,it didn't mean this is a fake.That guy may just hated somebody.
I'm sorry so many people talked about John Branca this John Branca that.You guys missed the one who was in the back.

Is this part of your post relevant to the voice controversy on the Cascio tracks?

 

[Willy]

Z like Zig Zag!