Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

OK, Qbee, moving on... I'm glad you chose to teach me/us a little bit about the art of debating. I guess, following debating rules, almost all must be OK for debaters here...
"Ad hominem" is not a good way to go, I agree.
What I wanted to say about the "argument" part : for myself it was not about the arguments, but about "debate" technics, there it seems I've still got to learn and accept a lot. (I followed court sittings 'people versus Murray' (still very fresh in my mind), but I guess I have'nt learned enough from debating style in court, only was too upset by style of defense.)

But another point : here, I take debaters too serious. Debating can be a competition (game/sport)...fun. And I am too serious about fair play. And I admit I knew that I played not fair last time with Bumper. It was because for me "the bucket was full", (does one say that in english?) For me a "fraud/not fraud" album debate is a more serious thing, not like a game or a personal competition, but OK that's my opinion, I should not judge others who enjoy it.

OK, here I stop trolling and move on...
 
Garden said:
[...] OK, For me a "fraud/not fraud" album debate is a more serious thing, not like a game or a personal competition, but OK that's my opinion, I should not judge others who enjoy it.

OK, here I stop trolling and move on...
Click to expand...

Oh the irony...

Nobody ever claimed to either enjoy this tiring debate about the authenticity or to personally compete as if it was some sort of game.

The doubters have always claimed we'd love to be wrong and put all this tiring discussion behind us.

The main focus here is Michael Jackson, and not any personal competition or game.

Indeed, let's move on.
 
Garden said:
OK, Qbee, moving on... I'm glad you chose to teach me/us a little bit about the art of debating. I guess, following debating rules, almost all must be OK for debaters here...
"Ad hominem" is not a good way to go, I agree.
What I wanted to say about the "argument" part : for myself it was not about the arguments, but about "debate" technics, there it seems I've still got to learn and accept a lot. (I followed court sittings 'people versus Murray' (still very fresh in my mind), but I guess I have'nt learned enough from debating style in court, only was too upset by style of defense.)

But another point : here, I take debaters too serious. Debating can be a competition (game/sport)...fun. And I am too serious about fair play. And I admit I knew that I played not fair last time with Bumper. It was because for me "the bucket was full", (does one say that in english?) For me a "fraud/not fraud" album debate is a more serious thing, not like a game or a personal competition, but OK that's my opinion, I should not judge others who enjoy it.

OK, here I stop trolling and move on...
Click to expand...
I think it is for all of us here as well, Garden. I do not think anyone here sees this as a game or a competition. We would not still be debating this topic if we did. And I'm sure all of us would be happy to finally see this situation resolved. That people joke around in this topic from time to time does not mean they do not see this as a very serious issue. Similarly, the fact that people use spirited language from time to time does not mean that they see it as a competition but rather, shows how passionate they are about this whole situation. At least that's how I see it.

Btw, I did not think you were trolling and hope you did not get that impression. I just saw things differently than you and wanted to say so. I'd be happy to see you join in on the discussion.
 
HI NASTY :D

barack-obama-left-hand-gesture.jpg
 
Paw said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

I do think there is a difference between re-using an ad-lib and re-using a song's chorus. But I also think it's not that relevant - the primary issue is the way the vocals sound to me.

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

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.
Click to expand...
All we have seen is a photo from an empty recording studio. We have not seen any actual evidence that Michael had anything to do with those songs. No written notes like we saw for Hollywood Tonight for instance, no voicemail message like we heard for (I Like) The Way You Love Me. Nothing. Eddie also refuses to be interviewed about these tracks (ask Joe Vogel).

Roger Friedman wrote that there are work tapes and that they would be released. Of course, this has never happened.

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?

Go dig it.Look for the truth.
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.
Click to expand...
This all just seems to be speculation to me. And where does the story come from that they were threatening producers with lawsuits, or that they acted like they knew everything?

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.
Click to expand...
Again, this just seems to be speculation to me? How do you know what exactly John McClain's involvement was?

Sorry paw, but I do not see where you are giving us facts like you said you were going to. It all just seems to be speculation to me really...
 
Last edited:
Garden said:
Is it already known who is NASTY?
Click to expand...

Yes. A lurker who apparently enjoys coming to the thread reading our posts.

Garden said:
What are new readers in this public thread supposed to think?
Click to expand...


As soon as I finish drinking my cup of coffee, I am immeditely going to make a survey of all the new readers and ask them what they think about Nasty and about my picture of Obama saying "hello" to Nasty.
 
Garden said:
OK, a lurker.
Then, what's Obama got to do with Nasty?
Ah OK, you are Obama.
Click to expand...

Obama has nothing to do with Nasty, Obama has to do with a waving hand saying "hello".

No, I am not Obama, I am Bumper Snippet.
 
8701girl said:
Oh i thought it was
Click to expand...

Breaking News, Monster and Keep Your Head Up from the album are Cascio tracks. The unreleased ones are Ready 2 Win, Soldier Boy, Black Widow, Burn 2Nite, Fall In Lone, All Right, Water, Stay and All I Need.
 
StellaJackson said:
Breaking News, Monster and Keep Your Head Up from the album are Cascio tracks. The unreleased ones are Ready 2 Win, Soldier Boy, Black Widow, Burn 2Nite, Fall In Lone, All Right, Water, Stay and All I Need.
Click to expand...
A whole album.... but he didn't have time to make more songs than those in some kind of private underground...
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
A whole album.... but he didn't have time to make more songs than those in some kind of private underground...
Click to expand...

This was where they slipped up. If they had done one or two songs and really worked on making sure those little giveaways weren't there then they might have just gotten away with it a little more. Instead their greed got in the way. They obviously wanted a whole album, hence the rather convenient 12.
 
StellaJackson said:
This was where they slipped up. If they had done one or two songs and really worked on making sure those little giveaways weren't there then they might have just gotten away with it a little more. Instead their greed got in the way. They obviously wanted a whole album, hence the rather convenient 12.
Click to expand...
funny-gif-penguin-slip-fall-water.gif
 
Garden said:
Thank you SoCav... I understand what you 're saying but... well, I think my problem is my perception... (But I want to move on.)
SoCav, I really thank you for inviting me to join. But, well, there's another problem :), I am not a good debater, (can't choose a camp), and from the arguments I read (both sides) I can not say that I think they really prove things, not the arguments from "doubters" and not the arguments from "believers". And personally as to my own hearing, I don't know what I hear, sometimes I think it's more voices over another or different takes over another, sometimes I think I hear clearly Michael, sometimes not clearly, sometimes it seem processed voice(s). About the persons involved, often I have the impression there is more talk about personal perceptions/ opnions more than that they can really point something that really proves something. Whether there is enough reason to call the 3 tracks a fraud, I really don't know. But there's 1 thing I agree without doubt, there should have been or come much more transparency with and after the release of the album, about the tracks, the methods, about the forensic reports afterwards and so on. Should the 3 tracks have been released or not, I don't know, there are arguments for yes, and for no.
So in fact I am a "not-knower" until we can safely agree "it" is sufficiently proved.
So I would have continuous problems with the debating style of debaters who think they are absolutely certain and absolutely want to convince others who are not or those who don't consider they could be wrong... or those who (secretly or openly) took the camp of anti Estate or anti Sony or anti Eddie or anti whom ever. (Yeah, some will deny it of course). Of course I cannot speak in general and in a way I am going "ad hominem" again. (So, I better move on from this...)
Usually I am not a person who participates easily in debates like this... goh, yes, why did I came in here this time? Having not much to say.
I said why... it was because I was upset about the tone in a discussion with Ivy. And from then on other things happened and it cumulated inside me... got to watch my feelings.
:) Have to move on... I've been getting too "sour" about this debate...
Anyway thanks SoCav!
Click to expand...

I guess we all can agree on the bold part! I echo SoCav's sentiment. Welcome to the discussion!

This thread is not just a debate thread anymore. It's more like a home thread to me. I mean I've been here and talked to some of the people for more than a year now. Despite the tiring "debate", I've learned tremendously from both camps.
 
BUMPER , when you mention the Cascio songs ripping of MJ's earlier work, you always forget that Stay rips of Childhood during its intro!!!
utropstegn.jpg
 
OnirMJ said:
Is it weird that Michael recorded 2 different songs with the same title 3 times?

Monster (Jackson, Buxer, Durham Prince) & Monster (Jackson*, Cascio, Porte)
Water (Jackson, Durham Prince, Feemster) & Water (Jackson*, Cascio, Porte)
Stay (Jackson, Loren) & Stay (Jackson*, Cascio, Porte)

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...0g9L3kyM19Jbe0VJ4qj&SEQ=20120410121059&SID=11

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pw...woq7ksL4cgPc4IHWFlq&SEQ=20120410121008&SID=11
Click to expand...

You can't link to individual registrations, which is why those links don't work but yeah that is interesting. There is a song called Stay that was recorded with Bryan Loren during the Dangerous sessions that has no relation. There is a song title of Monster from the late nineties which also has no relation and based on the copyright filings, we can see that Michael did work on another song called Water, also known as H20 that is unconnected to the Cascio one. Of course, it should be obvious why there is a Cascio track called Water.

I doubt that Cascio, Porte, Cupeta even knew those other titles existed.

Also, notice how Brad Buxer was able to register individual song titles, yet Cascio couldn't do this until almost a year after Michael died. Another red flag.
 
Last edited:
love is magical said:
I guess we all can agree on the bold part! I echo SoCav's sentiment. Welcome to the discussion!

This thread is not just a debate thread anymore. It's more like a home thread to me. I mean I've been here and talked to some of the people for more than a year now. Despite the tiring "debate", I've learned tremendously from both camps.
Click to expand...
Hi love is magical! Thank you for the welcome and yesss, probably all can agree on the part you bolded.
Yes love is magical, I'm aware that for several people this thread has become a homethread since long now and is not just a debate thread anymore. ;) You maybe are not really going to agree or like the idea, but then, indeed for me, the title is not very clear anymore, or maybe it can be... just if - it's only an idea - there could come a second thread (maybe also sticky), one that is called "The Debaters Club Thread", things written would be much clearer, in my opinion, what do you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top