Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Korgnex]

It is on the 2x12'' promo set. LOL! Pentum or someone else edited the wikipedia article to include "lead vocals by R. Kelly".

 

[kreen]

doesn't sound like the essence of MJ to me. But i have to ask..do you enjoy that someone would not develop his own personality, but would try to sound like MJ and try to make money off of it, at MJ's expense?

There's a ton of impersonators out there : Beatles, Elvis, MJ, Madonna, Cher : I don't care about any of them.

 

[OnirMJ]

It is on the 2x12'' promo set. LOL! Pentum or someone else edited the wikipedia article to include "lead vocals by R. Kelly".

Promo sets are not commercially released material. You can not legally buy promo material.

But it was again Sony's mistake to release it as a promo, not MJ's. Michael never selected which remixes will be released on the singles. That was Sony's job. I sure MJ never heard and approved that 2x12'' promo set.

 

[kreen]

Here is my question to the doubters :

If it is so clear to you that those 12 tracks are fake, and that Eddie hired Jason, and that the whole family + Friedman + Riley are all in on it, THEN it must be just as clear to the Jacksons, and in fact, they must have even more testimony they can access, timelines they can point to, investigators they can hire..

There is NOTHING they would like more than to sue the Estate -- whom they hate -- and the Cascios -- whom they hate. There is NOTHING they would like more than to -- for once -- win a court case and -- for once -- get good publicity. And they need money.

Unlike us, they have the means to launch a lawsuit.

So my question is : why haven't they?

 

[Korgnex]

Actually filing a lawsuit can be quite cheap. All is required is around $395 filing fee and you can represent yourself. A lot of small people have taken over big corporations - remember Erin Brockovich?

so it's not really an issue of money or big corporation. It all comes to the issue of evidence. Do you have any evidence that would stand in a court of law? Do you have anything that could force the company to settle and so on. So Bumper is right in that regard, it would be a challenge with all of these subjective evaluations.

The risk of starting a lawsuit without strong proof is that if you lose it in the end you can be held responsible for the other parties legal expenses and can face a counter lawsuit for malicious claims / defamation.

So if you have strong indisputable proof lawsuit are relatively easy, if you don't it's best to stay away.

The mention of lawsuit on this thread is only to show that there's not any indisputable proof. If there was Jacksons would be the first to rush to a court of law and try to remove the Executors with it or get money from Estate / Sony/ Cascios and so on.

Thanks, ivy.
Like I said many times, the plaintiff can demand the accused party to first reveal their evidence in court as in this specific case, the plaintiff only can try to dismiss this evidence, the judge has to agree on that. There's no need to first come up with a forensic test as the accused party has publicly claimed to have conducted such. The plaintiff only has to bring near the possibility of a fraud in their charge with good arguments, ZERO need for irrefutable evidence.
Look at many court cases, there is no NEED for the plaintiff to present evidence, you can begin a law suit by bringing near the POSSIBILITY of your charges. You need at least a good argumentation. NOT evidence to start a law suit!

In order to nullify the evidence of the accused party, it has to be presented to the court. The plaintiff doesn't have to present a forensic test, the circumstances of the accusations make it clear to the judge that the accused party has to show their evidence first.
Only then - AFTER the accused party presented their evidence - the plaintiff would need to counter it with other contradicting evidence (e.g. other tests from independent experts). Otherwise the accused party wins.

So STARTING such a law suit, is NOT the problem. Forcing the accused party to present their evidence is not super easy but an objective charge can do it.
It only gets problematic when you want to dismiss the evidence presented by the accused party.

But in this thread most of you made it clear that you believe that they a) have no evidence at all and b) it would be super easy to nullify it.

Promo sets are not commercially released material.

Didn't claim so. But to correct you: Promos are commercial in the sense that they are being distributed to radio/DJs etc. They are not commercially available for the consumers but commerce is more than just selling, advertizement on TV is also commercial. The same goes for promo remixes.

 

[OnirMJ]

Here is my question to the doubters :

If it is so clear to you that those 12 tracks are fake, and that Eddie hired Jason, and that the whole family + Friedman + Riley are all in on it, THEN it must be just as clear to the Jacksons, and in fact, they must have even more testimony they can access, timelines they can point to, investigators they can hire..

There is NOTHING they would like more than to sue the Estate -- whom they hate -- and the Cascios -- whom they hate. There is NOTHING they would like more than to -- for once -- win a court case and -- for once -- get good publicity. And they need money.

Unlike us, they have the means to launch a lawsuit.

So my question is : why haven't they?

Teddy Riley was not hired by the Cascios. Teddy Riley did not record those vocals. He made a mistake, just like Sony and John Branca did. They were tricked. The Jacksons don't hate Cascios, they hate fake songs. That is just propaganda by Frank Cascio.

I don't know why are they not suing Eddie Cascio, James Porte, Branca & Sony. Maybe because their lawyers would lose against powerful corporation like Sony and Branca. They are just fighting for MJ and for the truth but their access to the possible evidence is forbidden. They know about those songs the same things we do. They can't prove anything because Cascios and Porte did their job perfectly by destroying all the evidence.

Better question would be, why the Estate is not suing Cascios and Porte for fraud, for selling them fake songs. They have powerful lawyers and reputation. They could win this case easily, take their money back from the Cascios, apologize to the fans and refund that money to the people that bought the album.

 

[kreen]

I had never heard of this Ford mix, and one vocal controversy is enough for me, but the first question that popped into my head is : "why would this guy use R. Kelly's vocals on an official MJ mix and then pretend it's MJ"? Motivations are important, guys.

Also, Pentum, you introduce the man's last answer to you as, "he chickened out". Yes, that is the type of answer someone who chickens out would use. It is also the kind of answer that someone would use when they're dealing with somebody they don't know who insists they're a liar when they know full well they're telling tue truth.

If some guy wrote to me at work and said, "hey man, you didn't write that report", and I said "yes I did, yesterday, I remember it", and he sent me a bunch of arguments as to why I'm a liar and never did write the report, I wouldn't honor him with a long discussion either.
"Sir,

I have been kind enough with my time and I am not, nor have I ever been interested in this debate.
You have asked for my opinion, so here it is again: Michael IS indeed the singer on the "One More Chance" track.

 

[OnirMJ]

You have asked for my opinion, so here it is again: Michael IS indeed the singer on the "One More Chance" track.

Good for you. There is one more new song for you to enjoy.

Try this one. It is original You Are Not Alone Demo sung by Michael Jackson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgSUfUoR97g

And this is never before heard collaboration between MJ and will.i.am I'm Still The King. Don't believe in what you hear, just read what it says. It is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3xDxLtYIVc

 

[Jesta]

I'm going to lighten the mood again for y'all. This is an inspiring story of a man who defied all odds and came out of retirement to put on the greatest show on Earth.

This is the story... Of Jermaine Jackson's one-date world tour in 2010.



Have fun, Jermainiacs!


( )

 

[StellaJackson]

Teddy Riley and Roger Friedman etc were never "involved". That's just ridiculous and I don't know where that idea has come from. Anyone stating such a thing clearly does not understand the history of these songs. There are only three witnesses to the recording of these songs - Eddie, Porte and the lead vocalist. The songs sat with Sony for six weeks before being given to any producers. Teddy Riley was actually one of the first people to raise concerns, yet went ahead anyway. He needed the work I guess. Friedman was simply getting his info as an exclusive from Frank Dileo, who represented Porte at that time. Dileo also was not involved. He was not there. There is no grand conspiracy featuring all these people.

And yes, of course the Ford Remix uses R Kelley's demo vocals. Anyone should be able to hear that.

 

[Pentum]

I had never heard of this Ford mix, and one vocal controversy is enough for me, but the first question that popped into my head is : "why would this guy use R. Kelly's vocals on an official MJ mix and then pretend it's MJ"? Motivations are important, guys.

Also, Pentum, you introduce the man's last answer to you as, "he chickened out". Yes, that is the type of answer someone who chickens out would use. It is also the kind of answer that someone would use when they're dealing with somebody they don't know who insists they're a liar when they know full well they're telling tue truth.

If some guy wrote to me at work and said, "hey man, you didn't write that report", and I said "yes I did, yesterday, I remember it", and he sent me a bunch of arguments as to why I'm a liar and never did write the report, I wouldn't honor him with a long discussion either.
"Sir,

I have been kind enough with my time and I am not, nor have I ever been interested in this debate.
You have asked for my opinion, so here it is again: Michael IS indeed the singer on the "One More Chance" track.

Ah yeah, the official word. I forgot.

I wasn't interested in your opinion for your information.

 

[OnirMJ]

Teddy Riley and Roger Friedman etc were never "involved". That's just ridiculous and I don't know where that idea has come from. Anyone stating such a thing clearly does not understand the history of these songs. There are only three witnesses to the recording of these songs - Eddie, Porte and the lead vocalist. The songs sat with Sony for six weeks before being given to any producers. Teddy Riley was actually one of the first people to raise concerns, yet went ahead anyway. He needed the work I guess. Friedman was simply getting his info as an exclusive from Frank Dileo, who represented Porte at that time. Dileo also was not involved. He was not there. There is no grand conspiracy featuring all these people.

And yes, of course the Ford Remix uses R Kelley's demo vocals. Anyone should be able to hear that.

Friedman lied that he heard the songs with Porte vocals on, he lied that "Michael's" vocals were great, he was convincing people that the songs are real and he is mentioning Cascios and their songs whenever he gets an opportunity to (like in that Bad 25 article).

Do you think that all these lies and manupulations were Frank Dileo exclusives?

 

[StellaJackson]

Friedman lied that he heard the songs with Porte vocals on, he lied that "Michael's" vocals were great, he was convincing people that the songs are real and he is mentioning Cascios and their songs whenever he gets an opportunity to (like in that Bad 25 article).

Do you think that all these lies and manupulations were Frank Dileo exclusives?

I think he was given the exclusive in exchange for his support but doesn't actually know anything. It's interesting how those two articles that he wrote back in May 2010 about the songs are the only copyrighted articles on his site. I think he was picked to reveal the songs because he broke the exclusive back in 07 about Michael staying there. Interesting how in that original 07 article he makes no mention of any recording going on.

 

[elapentela]

I think he was given the exclusive in exchange for his support but doesn't actually know anything. It's interesting how those two articles that he wrote back in May 2010 about the songs are the only copyrighted articles on his site. I think he was picked to reveal the songs because he broke the exclusive back in 07 about Michael staying there. Interesting how in that original 07 article he makes no mention of any recording going on.

So what else he could do over there when wasn't busy with kids and business? Probably doing household job as payment for room and board. LOL.

 

[Frankyboy5]

Matthew Najar sounds quite a bit like Jason but he has an accent plus less goat vibrato. For his own sings however he sings with a higher tone. He claims he sang for Jason on Critical. But as much as he sounds like Jason, he also faked his singing of Breaking News by downpitching an acapella. There was a european Youtuber with a name I can't remember who also sounded like Jason, perhaps it was him too. This person uploaded brief poor quality audio snippets of themselves singing I Can Make It and You Are My Life and later on Stay. However this singer has an accent like Matthew but perhaps more so.

 

[Pentum]

I know this Matthew, and he's a fake. He once sent me an acappella of Critical, and he just sounded like he was trying to sound like Jason. A fake and a person we simply should ignore. He just used Jason and the Cascio controversity to gain free publicity. People started thinking he was involved in this while he was promoting his new songs and projects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apXn7BfIyTs&list=UUGEpbcFl1Ld7I8mP14or76Q&index=0&feature=plcp For people to hear how he sounds like. He does have a voice that can sound like a lot (he's an impersonator as well).



EDIT: I am also sure he uses some kind of a YouTube view booster. Two of his last videos has 200-300k views with only a few comments and likes.

 

[elapentela]

Actually filing a lawsuit can be quite cheap. All is required is around $395 filing fee and you can represent yourself. A lot of small people have taken over big corporations - remember Erin Brockovich?

so it's not really an issue of money or big corporation. It all comes to the issue of evidence. Do you have any evidence that would stand in a court of law? Do you have anything that could force the company to settle and so on. So Bumper is right in that regard, it would be a challenge with all of these subjective evaluations.

The risk of starting a lawsuit without strong proof is that if you lose it in the end you can be held responsible for the other parties legal expenses and can face a counter lawsuit for malicious claims / defamation.

So if you have strong indisputable proof lawsuit are relatively easy, if you don't it's best to stay away.

The mention of lawsuit on this thread is only to show that there's not any indisputable proof. If there was Jacksons would be the first to rush to a court of law and try to remove the Executors with it or get money from Estate / Sony/ Cascios and so on.

Thank you Ivy. Few of us did mention and sugested taking an issue to the court. It would be very exciting news if doubters would show their courage at last and stop wasting time with cheap talk. I would not miss one day of court procedure. I can"t wait, I'm so excited even thinking about this lawsuit.

 

[AlwaysThere]

I don't mean to stray off-topic, but wasn't One More Chance released just as the 2003 accusations arose? I highly doubt that Michael would have spent time to listen to a remix as he began to put together his defense team for the trial.

 

[elapentela]

Teddy Riley was not hired by the Cascios. Teddy Riley did not record those vocals. He made a mistake, just like Sony and John Branca did. They were tricked. The Jacksons don't hate Cascios, they hate fake songs. That is just propaganda by Frank Cascio.

I don't know why are they not suing Eddie Cascio, James Porte, Branca & Sony. Maybe because their lawyers would lose against powerful corporation like Sony and Branca. They are just fighting for MJ and for the truth but their access to the possible evidence is forbidden. They know about those songs the same things we do. They can't prove anything because Cascios and Porte did their job perfectly by destroying all the evidence.

Better question would be, why the Estate is not suing Cascios and Porte for fraud, for selling them fake songs. They have powerful lawyers and reputation. They could win this case easily, take their money back from the Cascios, apologize to the fans and refund that money to the people that bought the album.

It's funny. I would think you are Taryl. I have the answer for you regarding why the Estate is not suing Cascios and Porte for fraud, for selling them fake songs. It's simple. The Estate representatives don't accuse people for commiting the crime with no evidence. And the most important thing is that they hear Michael Jackson singing on the "fake" songs.

 

[OnirMJ]

It's funny. I would think you are Taryl. I have the answer for you regarding why the Estate is not suing Cascios and Porte for fraud, for selling them fake songs. It's simple. The Estate representatives don't accuse people for commiting the crime with no evidence. And the most important thing is that they hear Michael Jackson singing on the "fake" songs.

It's funny. I would think you are Frank C.

 

[elapentela]

I'll be the first guy to say I am anti-Eddie at least. What a bastard selling songs like this to Sony and betraying Michael.

I wonder if you would be anti-Taryl at least if he would sell songs (he of course would do that if he would have any) to Sony and betraying Michael. May you answer honestly?

 

[elapentela]

It's funny. I would think you are Frank C.[/QUOTE

So you think only Frank C. would answer you that way. And not the Estate. It's fascinating...

 

[kreen]

Good for you. There is one more new song for you to enjoy.

Try this one. It is original You Are Not Alone Demo sung by Michael Jackson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgSUfUoR97g

And this is never before heard collaboration between MJ and will.i.am I'm Still The King. Don't believe in what you hear, just read what it says. It is real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3xDxLtYIVc

Uh, if you'd bothered actually reading my post, you would have seen I was just quoting the Ford quote from Pentum : it's not me who said it's MJ singing that OMC remix.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I'm almost surprised that no-one has become dedicated to publicly showing the fraud of the Ford remix like they have with the Cascio tracks. After all, this happened under MJ's authority and I dare say that it's as damaging to his legacy than these tracks are.

It's not damaging at all because MJ DID sing OMC, he just didn't sing on the remixed version. And honestly there are zillions of remixes circulating around. They're just funny, that's all.

 

[ivy]

THEN it must be just as clear to the Jacksons, and in fact, they must have even more testimony they can access, timelines they can point to, investigators they can hire..

There is NOTHING they would like more than to sue the Estate -- whom they hate -- and the Cascios -- whom they hate. There is NOTHING they would like more than to -- for once -- win a court case and -- for once -- get good publicity. And they need money.

Unlike us, they have the means to launch a lawsuit.

So my question is : why haven't they?

Well that's my question as well. I never really expected a fan to file a lawsuit and go through the trouble but to me it speaks volumes and volumes that Jacksons didn't and aren't using this. And I'm not just talking about Michael's legacy or authenticity and such. Think about just executors. Wrongdoings in regards to the Estate can remove Executors from their position and Jacksons like to list a million negative things about Branca yet this is never brought up.

Thanks, ivy.
Like I said many times, the plaintiff can demand the accused party to first reveal their evidence in court as in this specific case, the plaintiff only can try to dismiss this evidence, the judge has to agree on that. There's no need to first come up with a forensic test as the accused party has publicly claimed to have conducted such. The plaintiff only has to bring near the possibility of a fraud in their charge with good arguments, ZERO need for irrefutable evidence.
Look at many court cases, there is no NEED for the plaintiff to present evidence, you can begin a law suit by bringing near the POSSIBILITY of your charges. You need at least a good argumentation. NOT evidence to start a law suit!

You are right that actually in the sense that a court case could be a perfect way to gather evidence or proof that the doubters are asking for. All is needed is a complaint for $395. Probably controversy about authenticity/ fraud would be enough for it to be considered by a trial court, conspiracy on the other hand requires knowledge of actual exchanges. So a court would allow the authenticity / fraud to be investigated.

During the discovery process you can ask for Estate / Sony to turn over evidence, expert reports and even depose relevant and third parties and force them answer questions.

Similarly they would ask for information from the doubters for the basis of their claims. If doubters cannot come with objective evidence probably a dismissal of the case will be requested.

And as I said any dismissal and any win by Sony/ Estate can result in being on the line for their legal expenses as well as facing a counter defamation lawsuit.

I don't know why are they not suing Eddie Cascio, James Porte, Branca & Sony. Maybe because their lawyers would lose against powerful corporation like Sony and Branca. They are just fighting for MJ and for the truth but their access to the possible evidence is forbidden. They know about those songs the same things we do. They can't prove anything because Cascios and Porte did their job perfectly by destroying all the evidence.

have you met Jacksons? They are suing AEG - a multi billion company- based on nothing but hearsay and being beaten in every step. Big corporations and not having perfect evidence isn't something that's stopping them. Joe Jackson and recently 4 jacksons have campaigns and even legal actions (Joe) against executors. They don't even have a legal standing to do anything. Sorry but those aren't things to stop them.

Note: There are also rumors that Jacksons did their own expert analysis and it came back as Michael as well and that's why they aren't pursuing any legal complaint. It's anyone's guess how true this is.

Better question would be, why the Estate is not suing Cascios and Porte for fraud, for selling them fake songs. They have powerful lawyers and reputation. They could win this case easily, take their money back from the Cascios, apologize to the fans and refund that money to the people that bought the album.

You know the answer to this. Because they don't believe the songs to be fake. They have been clear about that from the first day with their statement sent to fans.

edited to add: I don't think Estate bought the songs. We have their accounting reports. We haven't seen any $5 Million or $12 Million payment and you know that everything Estate does needs to be approved. I would think we would hear it if they made a payment for any songs.

 

[TheSilentOne]

I know this Matthew, and he's a fake. He once sent me an acappella of Critical, and he just sounded like he was trying to sound like Jason. A fake and a person we simply should ignore. He just used Jason and the Cascio controversity to gain free publicity. People started thinking he was involved in this while he was promoting his new songs and projects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apXn7BfIyTs&list=UUGEpbcFl1Ld7I8mP14or76Q&index=0&feature=plcp For people to hear how he sounds like. He does have a voice that can sound like a lot (he's an impersonator as well).



EDIT: I am also sure he uses some kind of a YouTube view booster. Two of his last videos has 200-300k views with only a few comments and likes.

Huh, an impersonator of an impersonator. Creepy

Reminds me of this:

Door Does Impression of Miles Davis

Shelder does an impression of a door doing an impression of miles davis

 

[kreen]

@Pentum : Like I told your friend OnirMJ : that was Ford's quote that I was quoting from your own correspondence with him

I take this opportunity to point out how rude doubters tend to be. Stella blasted me with a nice "You make me sick". Now you tell me off with a "I wasn't interested in your opinion".

You guys won't get far in the real world with that attitude...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Well that's my question as well. I never really expected a fan to file a lawsuit and go through the trouble but to me it speaks volumes and volumes that Jacksons didn't and aren't using this. And I'm not just talking about Michael's legacy or authenticity and such. Think about just executors. Wrongdoings in regards to the Estate can remove Executors from their position and Jacksons like to list a million negative things about Branca yet this is never brought up.



You are right that actually in the sense that a court case could be a perfect way to gather evidence or proof that the doubters are asking for. All is needed is a complaint for $395. Probably controversy about authenticity/ fraud would be enough for it to be considered by a trial court, conspiracy on the other hand requires knowledge of actual exchanges. So a court would allow the authenticity / fraud to be investigated.

During the discovery process you can ask for Estate / Sony to turn over evidence, expert reports and even depose relevant and third parties and force them answer questions.

Similarly they would ask for information from the doubters for the basis of their claims. If doubters cannot come with objective evidence probably a dismissal of the case will be requested.

And as I said any dismissal and any win by Sony/ Estate can result in being on the line for their legal expenses as well as facing a counter defamation lawsuit.



have you met Jacksons? They are suing AEG - a multi billion company- based on nothing but hearsay and being beaten in every step. Big corporations and not having perfect evidence isn't something that's stopping them. Joe Jackson and recently 4 jacksons have campaigns and even legal actions (Joe) against executors. They don't even have a legal standing to do anything. Sorry but those aren't things to stop them.

Note: There are also rumors that Jacksons did their own expert analysis and it came back as Michael as well and that's why they aren't pursuing any legal complaint. It's anyone's guess how true this is.



You know the answer to this. Because they don't believe the songs to be fake. They have been clear about that from the first day with their statement sent to fans.

edited to add: I don't think Estate bought the songs. We have their accounting reports. We haven't seen any $5 Million or $12 Million payment and you know that everything Estate does needs to be approved. I would think we would hear it if they made a payment for any songs.

I see many hastily drawn conclusions inhere. I'm disappointed Ivy, you can do better than this. Your post sounds like an echo of kreen's broken record

 

[ivy]

I see many hastily drawn conclusions inhere. I'm disappointed Ivy, you can do better than this. Your post sounds like an echo of kreen's broken record

play nice, today I wrote "bumper is right". that should be enough for us to be friendly for a day or two. kidding gotta go for now

 

[kreen]

I see many hastily drawn conclusions inhere. I'm disappointed Ivy, you can do better than this. Your post sounds like an echo of kreen's broken record

Funny, it sounds to me like absolute common sense.

Why don't the Jacksons sue? They would if they could. Why can't they?