Michael - The Great Album Debate

[OnirMJ]

What you and some people failing to understand that this is not necessarily defending but having a problem with serious accusations and attacks not only limited to Eddie but also generalized to his family as well. I can't understand calling people devil, comparing the family to Arvizo's and Chandlers or advocating to throw tomatoes at them. (all of which is written on this thread)

I understand anger but it doesn't make it okay to lose our morals and act like savages and motivate even physical attacks to anybody. If you want me to point out the ridiculousness, no one even said Murray - who KILLED Michael deserves to be thrown tomatoes at him, no one included his family in his wrongdoing. That is how much some doubters are lost and that's why some posts are really problematic for some of us. It's not really defending, it's actually being against this highly questionable statements.

You can see me as a defender or fan of Eddie or any Cascio. In reality however I see myself as a normal individual that has the basic morals and decency to not to motivate hate and physical attacks against anyone whether they are named Cascio, Arvizo, Chandler or Murray. It's one thing to criticize these parties, but it is a whole different game when you start accusations, hate and attacks. It shouldn't be this hard to understand this really.




There was even a thread on MJJC in 2008 explaining the nickname Angel and Angelikson - and you are right it was explained back then. But I'm not surprised to see some denying that name existed before Michael's death.

In MY OPINION Cascios (the whole family but especially Eddie and Frank) are the same or even worse than Chandlers and Arvizos. I say the whole family because they all know what happened and they all betrayed Michael (although just Eddie and Frank sold the songs). I don't have anything against Murray's family because they have nothing with MJ's death. And of course that Murray is worse than all Cascios, Arvizos and Chandlers together.

I'm not denying that the name existed before Michael's death. I know about that name for a long time. Even some copyright registrations were made with angelikson name in 2003-2005. I'm just questioning if MJ had anything to do with that name. And even if he did. The nickname and the name of his production company are lame and pretentious. If someone told me to call myself Angel or God or something like that, I would say no thanks (I'm not talking about private nicknames like applehead, but public stage names).

 

[OnirMJ]

Good try but try to do better.

It's important to differentiate between facts and opinion. It's a fact that Eddie is nick named Angel by Michael. Calling it lame etc. is actually an insult to the person - Michael - who came up with that name. Onir's denial that these names were used in Thriller 25 - when Michael alive and it was explained in 2008 on this very board is a quite interesting demonstration of his bias. That's what attracted my attention. I don't give a rat's ass if you see that as "defending" Eddie. From where I'm standing I was successfully demonstrating a bias and misplaced anger and denial of information and facts.

"Onir's denial that these names were used in Thriller 25" ????????????

When did I say that? I know about that name for a long time. I saw it in a Thriller 25 booklet. When Roger Friedman's articles started to come out in march/april 2010 I found out that Angelikson is Eddie Cascio, I know all that. I saw all copyright registrations with his name dating back to 2003-2005.

I just questioned if Michael really gave him that nickname. Which I also said is possible, because MJ was good to everyone.

One thing is to have a nickname at home, a nickname that your friends and family use and other thing is a professional stage name. I said that his name in the business "Angel" and the name of his production company "Angelikson" are lame and pretentious. Because he is not an angel, he is far from that.

 

[WildStyle]

As far as ad-libs, Michael would often sing them while doing the lead vocal take. The background vocals and harmonies would come first (which are suspiciously absent from all Cascio tracks). He would sing every harmony part stacking his own voice on top of itself over and over, then he would sing the lead part over that. That is theusual way Michael recorded vocals during his career.

Anybody with any excuses for this? Why did MJ not record in his usual fashion for all 12 Cascio tracks? The background vocals are quite obviously not MJ stacked on top of himself over and over again as he usually did. There have been a lot excuses for the seemingly endless suspicious things to do with these tracks. And why? Because Eddie says it's Michael. At some point you must have to think to yourself "Hmm... there are a few too many red flags here. Maybe I should at least question the single bit of evidence given that it is Michael on these songs. The word of Eddie Cascio, who's character I really know nothing about."

But the songs do feature the same sort of background vocals. It just isn't Michael. The point is that Michael would almost always record those parts first and then sing his lead part. Often in the early stages of a songs life, the background and chorus vocals were the only part finished and fleshed out, while the verse lyrics remained incomplete. Why did this not occur for a single Cascio song? It's not like this was a difficult process for Michael. He could stack harmonies perfectly pitched and lined up faster than anyone. Everyone who's worked with him has commented on it. Of course, I know the answer, I'm just trying to make people see that there are a lot of unusual things with these songs even outside of the lead vocals. A lot of red flags.

Nobody?

 

[Lucilla]

Nobody?

Good luck with that

 

[144000]

Well as Michael is involved in the name you are insulting him as much as you are insulting Eddie.

As for the books and court documents you need to go and check older books, articles about child molestation and the likes of Diane Dimond and such. Michael's close interaction with multiple kids over decades and the nicknames etc he used for them was mentioned in those. Of course they were quite negative approaches. All the nicknames of multiple people ranging from applehead, blow hole, angel, baby rubba etc. aren't news to the long time fans.




What you and some people failing to understand that this is not necessarily defending but having a problem with serious accusations and attacks not only limited to Eddie but also generalized to his family as well. I can't understand calling people devil, comparing the family to Arvizo's and Chandlers or advocating to throw tomatoes at them. (all of which is written on this thread)

I understand anger but it doesn't make it okay to lose our morals and act like savages and motivate even physical attacks to anybody. If you want me to point out the ridiculousness, no one even said Murray - who KILLED Michael deserves to be thrown tomatoes at him, no one included his family in his wrongdoing. That is how much some doubters are lost and that's why some posts are really problematic for some of us. It's not really defending, it's actually being against this highly questionable statements.

You can see me as a defender or fan of Eddie or any Cascio. In reality however I see myself as a normal individual that has the basic morals and decency to not to motivate hate and physical attacks against anyone whether they are named Cascio, Arvizo, Chandler or Murray. It's one thing to criticize these parties, but it is a whole different game when you start accusations, hate and attacks. It shouldn't be this hard to understand this really.




There was even a thread on MJJC in 2008 explaining the nickname Angel and Angelikson - and you are right it was explained back then. But I'm not surprised to see some denying that name existed before Michael's death.

you contradict many things you say. You obliterated the idea of determining morals, when you said there can be an argument for anything the Cascios do. Secondly, you keep showing your loss of your arguments by you getting personal. You called the doubters 'lost'. Thirdly, comparing the cascios to the arvisos is not a loss of morals, it's a reiterating of them. there comes a place where there's a line that should not be crossed..the line of dignity. It's a word that Michael used in the song 'Money'. Your arguments continue to attempt to salt away that line. It's that arrow toward anarchy, which causes disruption and chaos and destruction in society. Your arguments promote that, and you don't even see it. There are so many forms of corruption...they aren't all that obvious...but if a line isn't drawn, somewhere, then the only other direction is that chaos, which is no different from the doctor, the Arvisos, a man who cheats on his wife, or anybody else down that road. You seem to argue that because what the Cascios do is not proven to some..in the eyes of some...and because it is so quiet and subtle, it's less evil than the loud bang of killing someone. evil is evil. dignity is dignity. they are polar opposites. Michael used the word 'devil' because of what was being done to him by people in his industry. He told Allred to go to hell because of what she was trying to do to his children. There's nothing wrong with that. Allred started the evil. The industry bigwigs started the evil. If the initiator of the evil isn't stopped..or a line is not drawn, That is what starts the chaos...not Michael or doubters calling it out for what it is.

I try to concentrate on your posts, and the Arvisos, and other subjects of conversation, and you keep veering to attacking fellow members. You being a mod and doing this, makes the whole atmosphere, very very uncomfortable.

 

[ivy]

thanks @144,000 I quite enjoyed your post and how you can't see how personal you are getting in your post but luckily I don't care.

and I'm not gonna say sorry if you took anything personally. I actually find it funny when unrelated people jump to conversations between other people. I don't remember Michael on the top of the bus for Sony or talking about Arvizos etc and saying "they and their families deserve to be thrown tomatoes at them".

As a highly educated and civil adult any promotion of such physical attacks on people including senior citizens is acting like savages in my book. Not seeing what some people are saying and how wrong it is includes to being lost in my opinion. I would say this for any person in any situation. It got nothing to do with "doubters" or your opinion in regards to the songs or anything else.

In short I strongly believe that adults are capable of discussing anything in a civil fashion. There's nothing adult or civil about saying 60 + year old people deserve to be thrown tomatoes at them just because they are related to someone.

Do something for me. Go to twitter and check mentions for Paris. You will see that she's receiving bullying and hate everyday because her father is Michael. People who hate Michael are hating on Michael's minor daughter. It is wrong. Similarly I don't care what Eddie did or how you feel about Eddie but if you think it makes it okay to attack and promote physical attacks towards his mother, father, sister etc you are sadly mistaken. This action of doubters is no different than those people out there thinking it's okay to bully & hate Paris because they believe her father had done something wrong or simply was different.

Perhaps you are just starting to read this thread but I have expressed the same point of view and the same unhappiness for multiple times in this thread over the two years. I believe attacking families, advocating hate and physical attacks is morally wrong. I will continue to point it when I see fit.

and everyone knows that I'm not on this thread as a moderator and I don't do any moderation on this thread. So you are uncomfortable for no reason.

 

[144000]

thanks @144,000 I quite enjoyed your post and how you can't see how personal you are getting in your post but luckily I don't care.

and I'm not gonna say sorry if you took anything personally. I don't remember Michael on the top of the bus for Sony or talking about Arvizos etc and saying "they and their families deserve to be thrown tomatoes at them". As a highly educated and civil adult any promotion of such physical attacks on people including senior citizens is acting like savages in my book. Not seeing what some people are saying and how wrong it is includes to being lost in my opinion. I would say this for any person in any situation. It got nothing to do with "doubters".

In short I strongly believe that adults are capable of discussing anything in a civil fashion. There's nothing adult or civil about saying 60 + year old people deserve to be thrown tomatoes at them just because they are related to someone.

Do something. Go to twitter and check mentions for Paris. You will see that she's receiving bullying and hate everyday because her father is Michael. People who hate Michael are hating on Michael's minor daughter. It is wrong. Similarly I don't care what Eddie did or how you feel about Eddie but if you think it makes it okay to attack and promote physical attacks towards his mother, father, sister etc you are sadly mistaken.

Perhaps you are just starting to read this thread but I have expressed the same point of view and the same happiness for multiple times in this thread over the two years. I will continue to do so when I see fit.

and everyone knows that I'm not on this thread as a moderator and I don't do any moderation on this thread. So you are uncomfortable for no reason.

please..point out where i am getting personal..because it matters to me. i'm sorry that you just said that you don't care about that as much as i do. that's unfortunate. and i'm sorry that you don't see what you are doing, personally, and that you are denying, and wrongly saying that i feel attacked for no reason.

and whatever you are saying about throwing tomatoes, and such and death threats and such..i know that i have not participated in any of that, and i extremely strongly oppose it..and if i see it, personally, i will most assuredly call it out. and i have personally been on the attack of any mentions of any threats to Paris, or any of the people you mentioned.

 

[ivy]

and whatever you are saying about throwing tomatoes, and such and death threats and such..i know that i have not participated in any of that, and i extremely strongly oppose it..and if i see it, personally, i will most assuredly call it out. and i have personally been on the attack of any mentions of any threats to Paris, or any of the people you mentioned.

so then what is the problem with me calling it out then? what's the issue with me strongly opposing it and being vocal about it? why did you spend the time to write that first post?

I clearly mentioned what was troubling for me (physical attacks, generalizing to family members especially mentioning mother, tomatoes and so on). If you didn't take part in such and if you are against such there's no reason to be a cry baby about it and act like I was making this negative statements about "doubters" in general or act like I was talking about you. I wasn't.

So this exaggeration, this unfair approach and post accompanied by "you did this", "you you you" is PERSONAL. The only reason you opposed to me was PERSONAL because you saw me as an opposing opinion and it autopilot you responded to me with all those "you you" statements. If it was not personal you could have said " I don't think these vocals are Michael, I think Eddie is wrong for doing that but peeps I don't think it's okay to say the whole family deserves to be attacked". That would have been a nice, fair, objective and non-personal behavior. But I guess it's too late to expect such approach from anyone.

 

[144000]

so then what is the problem with me calling it out then? what's the issue with me strongly opposing it and being vocal about it? why did you spend the time to write that first post?

I clearly mentioned what was troubling for me (physical attacks, generalizing to family members especially mentioning mother, tomatoes and so on). If you didn't take part in such and if you are against such there's no reason to be a cry baby about it and act like I was making this negative statements about "doubters" in general or act like I was talking about you. I wasn't.

So this exaggeration, this unfair approach and post accompanied by "you did this", "you you you" is PERSONAL. The only reason you opposed to me was PERSONAL because you saw me as an opposing opinion and it autopilot you responded to me with all those "you you" statements. If it was not personal you could have said " I don't think these vocals are Michael, I think Eddie is wrong for doing that but peeps I don't think it's okay to say the whole family deserves to be attacked". That would have been a nice, fair, objective and non-personal behavior. But I guess it's too late to expect such approach from anyone.

Who else used the term 'lost'? and, just now...'crybaby', referring to me? But you know what? i'm cool. i don't think there is anything being accomplished, here. One thing for certain, the objective is not being accomplished. Certainly, it has not been done in this post, nor in the quote that i quoted. i will no longer participate in this. Minds are certainly made up. There's no discussion going on, at this point. i don't feel such a need for last words, whether i get them, or not.

 

[Member Service]

Please Stop any personal attacks, personal unrelated squabbles or insults over difference of opinion. Plus it is totally uneccessary to compare our members or the Casico family with the Arvizo's or make posts regarding any physical attacks (Joke or not) on this family as was done in this thread. Please everyone move on and get back on topic.

 

[alex13]

Even though the king is gone, the beat goes on and on

 

[OnirMJ]

Some Michael Jackson fans are defending Eddie Cascio & James Porte and believe in every word the Estate tells them (without any proof) It is unbelievable for me that some fans can actually believe in the stories like recording in a bathroom, recording through a PVC pipe, amateur studio, amateur equipement, vocal processing... But refusing to look at all the evidence gathered by fellow fans like comparisons, words from other producers and Michael's family. It is really sad that the fans are turning against each other and that some fans just accepted what happened and moved on. This is the matter that should be answered. And the fans (all fans around the world, believers and doubters) should demand the transparency from the Estate. Maybe signing a petition for the release of concrete proof, vocals before any work was done on them and of course results of forensic analysis. Producers, Cascios and Porte should also write a statement or make an interview with all the details about how the songs were made. They will not do that, they'll just keep putting things under the rug unless we do something together, believers, doubters and all others. We must come together on this, be united and demand transparency. If we don't do that together and if some fans just forget that and move on; the real (not believer's or doubter's) truth will never come out.

 

[Chamife]

When you look at the subject of this thread: the songs that we doubt are sung by Michael....I honestly feel that the tone we use regarding The Cascio family and Eddie or Frank (when did his mother and father came up in all of the almost 30.000 posts? two or three times? ) is very mild compared to the buckets full of shit, the namecalling, the insulting posts, the accusations (in other words: the HATEFEST ) that are accrued (translation?) to Michael's parents and sibblings in almost every post in every subject that has to do with them.

But yeah, maybe we can behave even better than we already do.

 

[kreen]

Good luck with that

I for one have answered these questions and simliar ones throughout the last 2000 pages.

One tires of repeating the exact same posts over and over again after 2 years.

If a given Cascio song contains elements that remind the listener of previous MJ songs (like BN/Tabloid Junkie; Soldier Boy/TDCAU; Monster/Al Capone; All I Need/YANA), doubters claim that shows the songs are fake, because (take your pick) they tried to fool fans into thinking it's MJ by copying previous songs/MJ would never repeat himself in such a way/the real MJ was a better writer and could have written new stuff.

But if a given song contains elements that seem all-new for MJ, then THAT is held against it, and proves that (take your pick) MJ had nothing to do with it/MJ would never disappoint fans by forgetting his trademarks/it shows Malachi couldn't credibly imitate MJ.


I'll also point out that, starting with Invincible, MJ made an obvious effort to stay away from some of his classic trademarks : just compare it to "Bad" in terms of the number of "aoow's" and "hee-hee's" you can hear. So there's nothing surprising about that fact many of those trademarks are missing in action on the Cascio tracks. In fact, a case could be made that the producers betrayed MJ --not by releasing the songs -- but in adding classic trademarks that MJ himself felt belonged to his past.

 

[kreen]

Regarding my apparently shocking statement that MJ was not in the best of health after 2005, well, I know I wouldn’t want to exchange my current health situation for his after 2005. Would you?

By the way, it’s very important for MJ fans to understand what fans in all of the other communities I go to understand: just because you respect the artist doesn’t mean you have to believe they were perfect human beings. And just because you like the music doesn’t mean you have to believe they never released a clunker. It’s OK to be NUANCED.

MJ was in kick-ass health in 1988, at that Wembley show. The same MJ was not in kick-ass health in 2001, in MSG. And he wasn’t in 2005, on the last day of the trial. And he wasn’t in 2009, when he made the TII press conference. And he wasn’t the night he died, unless you considered it healthy to have to be anaesthetized into sleep every night.

 

[Member Service]

Please Stop any personal attacks, personal unrelated squabbles or insults over difference of opinion. Plus it is totally uneccessary to compare our members or the Casico family with the Arvizo's or make posts regarding any physical attacks (Joke or not) on this family as was done in this thread. Please everyone move on and get back on topic.

Thread cleaned once again. Stop insulting believers and or doubters in your posts. You can state your views, opinions without doing that. In other words try discussing the topic instead of each other. Any further posts of that nature will be deleted without notice. Let's get back on topic please.

 

[SoCav]

Regarding my apparently shocking statement that MJ was not in the best of health after 2005, well, I know I wouldn’t want to exchange my current health situation for his after 2005. Would you?

By the way, it’s very important for MJ fans to understand what fans in all of the other communities I go to understand: just because you respect the artist doesn’t mean you have to believe they were perfect human beings. And just because you like the music doesn’t mean you have to believe they never released a clunker. It’s OK to be NUANCED.

MJ was in kick-ass health in 1988, at that Wembley show. The same MJ was not in kick-ass health in 2001, in MSG. And he wasn’t in 2005, on the last day of the trial. And he wasn’t in 2009, when he made the TII press conference. And he wasn’t the night he died, unless you considered it healthy to have to be anaesthetized into sleep every night.

kreen, the reason people were shocked by your statement was not because they think MJ was perfect. You did not say Michael was 'not in the best of health', your claim went far beyond that. What was worse is that the wording that you used was extremely harsh and completely void of empathy for Michael. Not the kinds of words I would expect to see a fan post, to be totally honest...

 

[Lucilla]

Just want to point out some of what kreen said, that I think its interesting.

In my case, I agree that MJ sometimes repeated some melodies, phrases, etc. That’s why that is not my major concern.

My concern is the voice I hear, the lack of presented proofs by the people who should present them, in general the lack of quality (imo) of those songs, and also yes, the classical MJ trademarks.


And about Invincible style: I know the subtle differences in MJ style when I hear Invincible, but with the Cascio tracks we're talking about a whole new level of differences.
Differences that we don’t hear in “Best of Joy”, for example.

ps: and some of us doubters don’t have an agenda or hate anyone.
Some of us just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Kreen, what you fail to understand is that nobody said MJ was perfect, but a perfectionist, that's our, doubters', nuance.

Regarding his health, I don't think that MJ would have recorded an entire album before getting in shape. On top you have Eddie who confirmed that MJ worked hard and was ready to release those songs. Eddie also agreed that MJ would love this controversy.

I don't know where you got the idea that MJ was sick while recording those tracks when nobody ever mentioned that. The Estate didn't mention it, SONY didn't mention it, Eddie didn't mention it, Teddy didn't mention it, not a single professional mentioned MJ's health as a reason why MJ sounded different. You actually made that argument up in order to convince yourself why he sounded different.

And, even if he had been let's say ill, I don't think that he'd record 12 entire songs, nor that he'd actually sound differently. Not being in shape doesn't mean that your voice will all of sudden sound different than usual.


p.s. I would however like to add that in his own genre, MJ was actually perfect when it comes to his style of music. I don't know if you have seen the movie "Amadeus", but there is one scene when the king asks Mozart to remove some notes from his composition. Mozart was stuck and terribly annoyed as he felt that the composition he wrote was perfect and that nothing should be added or removed. Mozart knew when something was perfectly well completed. In a way, MJ in his own style was a pioneer. And when you see it from that perspective, you see that even MJ's demos and unfinished songs were somehow actually perfect. Nobody could really add or remove things without his either blessing or his own participation.

The Cascio songs have none of these particularities. On the contrary, let alone the voice, the melodies, although catchy, sound extremely over-fabricatded with no real originality. They sound like a "déjà vu", as if previous songs had been chopped, sliced and put back together in order to fabricate the Cascio songs.

 

[WildStyle]

I for one have answered these questions and simliar ones throughout the last 2000 pages.

One tires of repeating the exact same posts over and over again after 2 years.

If a given Cascio song contains elements that remind the listener of previous MJ songs (like BN/Tabloid Junkie; Soldier Boy/TDCAU; Monster/Al Capone; All I Need/YANA), doubters claim that shows the songs are fake, because (take your pick) they tried to fool fans into thinking it's MJ by copying previous songs/MJ would never repeat himself in such a way/the real MJ was a better writer and could have written new stuff.

But if a given song contains elements that seem all-new for MJ, then THAT is held against it, and proves that (take your pick) MJ had nothing to do with it/MJ would never disappoint fans by forgetting his trademarks/it shows Malachi couldn't credibly imitate MJ.


I'll also point out that, starting with Invincible, MJ made an obvious effort to stay away from some of his classic trademarks : just compare it to "Bad" in terms of the number of "aoow's" and "hee-hee's" you can hear. So there's nothing surprising about that fact many of those trademarks are missing in action on the Cascio tracks. In fact, a case could be made that the producers betrayed MJ --not by releasing the songs -- but in adding classic trademarks that MJ himself felt belonged to his past.

Yeah, you didn't answer the question. I'm not even sure you understand what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with trademarks and everything to do with the workflow of a highly disciplined professional. This was simply the way Michael recorded. Why did Michael not follow his usual pattern of recording vocals that he'd been using for almost 30 years? Background vocals and harmonies first, then lead vocals. This has nothing to do with MJ's health (which was fine in 2007) and everything to do with how Michael worked. For not one song out of twelve did he work in his usual manner. Do you realise how far fetched that is?

Another red flag. Will.I.Am said that Michael kept his vocals on his own hard drive. Why didn't he do that for the Cascio recordings? One set of rules for one producer and a different set of rules for another? Michael supposedly recorded them in 2007, he died in 2009. In all that time he never even had his own copy of these songs. Never wrote a single note mentioning even one of them. Red flag, red flag, red flag.

 

[Arklove]

I mean, look at all the details we've received from the 6 unreleased BAD25 songs. Through Joe Vogel, through Matt Forger.

No hesitation, there you go, bam. It's all there, and there's probably even more. I know we don't need proof or information about these songs cuz they're all undoubtedly MJ, but when you pair weird vocals with NO details about them it equals total red flags.

NOTHING for 12 songs.

I don't know why some people don't see anything weird about this.

 

[kreen]

People say "we have no details about those songs". Uh, we actually have more details about them than we do about a lot of other MJ songs. We know precisely when and where they were recorded. We know precisely who was present at the sessions. We know they were guide or demo vocals not meant to be released. We have anecdotes from the producers about the recording sessions.

Oh and we have a statement from the MJ Estate saying that they authentificated the voice on the songs not once, but twice.

We also have an official list of former MJ collaborators who testified it was really MJ on those songs.

Compare this to the amount of info we have on, say, "Privacy" or "Shout".

Really, I think it all comes down to those authentification reports. I think they're the reason why the Jacksons haven't sued.

Which brings me to this. Let's say the contents of those reports come out one day, and we see that two reputable companies have indeed scientifically verified the authenticity of the vocals : it is MJ after all.

Will doubters be satisfied with that?

 

[kreen]

I don't know why some people don't see anything weird about this.

It is weird, yes. But again, "the failure to explain everything does not negate all that is explained". There are many ways one can explain why we don't have more info, aside from "it's all a big conspiracy!" Like I've said, as is always the case, the reasons are probably legal and financial.

Legal : Eddie/James were told to say nothing more, because everything they say could be used against them in a court of law if a lawsuit is ever launched.

Financial : it was felt by the Estate that bringing up this issue again would do more harm to the MJ brand than to just let it go and deal with the few thousands hard-core fans who can't get over it. Or maybe Eddie, whom we now see is pursuing his career in production, doesn't want any more discussion on this to harm his professional prospects.

The problem is that to doubters, silence is proof of guilt. When it could be argued that silence is actually confidence in their position. And of course, if Casio/Porte were to come out now and argue with us that they're innocent, doubters would see THAT as guilt-ridden desperation.

The other day, I stumbled upon an old thread from 2008, where one of Cascio's friends was promoting here some new singer Eddie has signed to his production company. Anyway, some fans were angrily asking that friend why Eddie wouldn't answer people's questions directly (that was way before the whole debate, remember), and the friend said, «Eddie knows people know he's associated with MJ and he doesn't want to be harrassed by MJ fans who would always ask him questions about MJ". So even back then, when Eddie Cascio was not the lightning rod figure he is now, he didn't like the fans' unwarranted attention. So you can imagine he doesn't like it now...

 

[AlwaysThere]

People say "we have no details about those songs". Uh, we actually have more details about them than we do about a lot of other MJ songs. We know precisely when and where they were recorded. We know precisely who was present at the sessions. We know they were guide or demo vocals not meant to be released. We have anecdotes from the producers about the recording sessions.

But is there any proof? Are there any photos or videos of Michael in the Cascio studio? Are there any detailed notes by Michael dictating how he wanted the songs to evolve, like he did with Hollywood Tonight and Best of Joy? No, there is not. Eddie himself also said that vocals were recorded in a shower, which is total bullshit. If vocals were recorded in the specific shower Eddie indicated, there would have been unavoidable reverb that, to my knowledge, cannot be removed. Listening to the vocals on all of the Cascio tracks, none of the vocals have any reverb effects (save for the later added effects in post). So this is not proof.

Oh and we have a statement from the MJ Estate saying that they authentificated the voice on the songs not once, but twice.

The Estate said they gave "a cappella vocals" to forensic audiologists to compare to other Michael Jackson a cappellas. They did not say WHAT parts of the Cascio songs were given. It could have been the sampled ad-libs/vocals from Invincible tracks. So this is technically not proof.

We also have an official list of former MJ collaborators who testified it was really MJ on those songs.

The Estate said this, yes. But did anyone really back it up? I remember reading a long background on the Cascio controversy somewhere in this thread that stated that many of the people that supposedly testified the tracks' authenticity did NOT say what the Estate claimed they said. Almost none of Michael's collaborators have come forward to voice their opinions on the Cascio tracks, so there is technically no proof that they said anything. (The only collaborator who's come forward with an opinion has been will.i.am, who worked with Michael around the time the Cascio tracks were recorded. He has said that upon first hearing Breaking News, he said it wasn't Michael.)

Compare this to the amount of info we have on, say, "Privacy" or "Shout".

But there is a fundamental difference between Privacy/Shout and the Cascio tracks. Privacy and Shout were both released while Michael was alive, the aforementioned being chosen BY MICHAEL to be released on Invincible. Shout was placed on the CD single of Cry in 2002, ALSO while Michael was alive.

Let's say the contents of those reports come out one day, and we see that two reputable companies have indeed scientifically verified the authenticity of the vocals : it is MJ after all. Will doubters be satisfied with that?

Nope, we will not. The only thing that will fully stop this debate is if the video footage of Michael recording Monster that has long been speculated is leaked/released. Then I'm sure the doubters will admit that they were wrong. But seeing as how Michael doesn't sing on any of the songs, that's never going to happen.

 

[Arklove]

It is weird, yes. But again, "the failure to explain everything does not negate all that is explained". There are many ways one can explain why we don't have more info, aside from "it's all a big conspiracy!" Like I've said, as is always the case, the reasons are probably legal and financial.

Legal : Eddie/James were told to say nothing more, because everything they say could be used against them in a court of law if a lawsuit is ever launched.

Financial : it was felt by the Estate that bringing up this issue again would do more harm to the MJ brand than to just let it go and deal with the few thousands hard-core fans who can't get over it. Or maybe Eddie, whom we now see is pursuing his career in production, doesn't want any more discussion on this to harm his professional prospects.

The problem is that to doubters, silence is proof of guilt. When it could be argued that silence is actually confidence in their position. And of course, if Casio/Porte were to come out now and argue with us that they're innocent, doubters would see THAT as guilt-ridden desperation.

The other day, I stumbled upon an old thread from 2008, where one of Cascio's friends was promoting here some new singer Eddie has signed to his production company. Anyway, some fans were angrily asking that friend why Eddie wouldn't answer people's questions directly (that was way before the whole debate, remember), and the friend said, «Eddie knows people know he's associated with MJ and he doesn't want to be harrassed by MJ fans who would always ask him questions about MJ". So even back then, when Eddie Cascio was not the lightning rod figure he is now, he didn't like the fans' unwarranted attention. So you can imagine he doesn't like it now...

I don't know how to separate quotes either, so I'll just answer in general a few of your points.

I know almost nothing about legalities, but if they are so confident that these songs are real, why would Eddie/James be told to say nothing more?

I'm not saying their silence is an indication of guilt, but it certainly doesn't ease the situation that these songs are real.

See, the thing is, Privacy and Shout don't need any further information (although it would be nice just for interest sake, I know I'm not alone in saying that most MJ fans want to hear all sorts of details about his music). The reason they don't need further information is because these songs are without a doubt MJ. Even if he wasn't alive when they were released, they are still undoubtedly MJ. I don't see the vocal issue you seem to have with these songs. If fans have issues with the vocals, then maybe they don't know his voice very well? I'm not trying to offend anyone, but come on. Just sayin'.

Check this thread out, look at the details about the songs from BAD25, it's just icing on the cake, great information that all fans love to read about. No one demanded the information, but there it is. Same with All In Your Name with Barry Gibb, no one demanded that a studio footage be released, but Barry did it anyway. But why nothing for 3 (9 ?pending) songs that were apparently good enough to release on the first posthumous MJ album?

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...l-Capone%94-Matt-Forger-the-secrets-of-BAD-25

If we were to receive an abundance of information about the Cascio songs, it won't necessarily PROVE that it's MJ singing, but it'd be a step in the right direction to know that he at least had some heavy involvement. It's just that at any given time, you can almost always find information about MJ's music. Why not for 12 songs? If it were one or two, ok then no big deal. But even then, with the vocals so unlike MJ, then it'd be one or two too many.

But like I said, when you pair vocals that a large amount of fans doubt, with NO information about ANY of those songs, THAT is a red flag. Why didn't Eddie want to discuss these songs with Joe Vogel? Or James Porte for that matter? Eddie has "professional prospects", remember? That'd help his resume, no? I just find it strange. He works with the greatest entertainer that ever lived and he doesn't want to discuss it? Ok then.

If Eddie didn't want the fans' unwarranted attention, then why go on Oprah? Why do that 'Michael' album special? He had to have expected that if he releases songs that need a forensic to figure out who's singing, and especially if we've never seen a single trace of what these reports even are, then there will sure as hell be more ongoing questions that need to be answered.

Why not do a Q&A with MJJC? I believe Ivy's been trying to arrange that with no luck? I mean, the questions are controlled and selected. It doesn't even have to be questions about the VOCALS per se, although no doubt fans will ask, but even just more detail about the songs? Notes Michael had? His vision for the songs? The directions he wanted to take? Why nothing like this?

I personally think there are a whole lot more than 'a few thousand hard-core fans'. There are likely a hell of a lot more than that who don't bother discussing any of it on a forum. I know tons of fans who are doubters who have never discussed it on a forum. It doesn't mean they are any more over it than we are. And if I know a ton, chances are a lot of other doubters on this forum know a ton as well, as so on and so forth.

It's not a conspiracy, at least for me. I just want more transparency about a large amount of songs that have mysteriously appeared and sound completely unlike MJ has ever sounded.

Look what happened when Breaking News was first streamed. EVERYONE on this forum were up in arms. Has that EVER happened with any other MJ song? And then what happened? People were somehow appeased when the Estate released that statement. Yet, all anyone had to go on was what they were hearing. After that statement, what, somehow their hearing changed?

You can say some were influenced that the songs were fake via the Jacksons tweets, but if you flip it, then you can also say fans were persuaded by that statement from the Estate as well.

 

[Aniram]

All of the 'believers' know it's been confirmed that the Cascio songs were recorded on professional microphones? I don't understand how professional studio microphones would make Michael sound so strange or why they'd need any 'processing'.

Actually, I'm thinking songs like Hollywood Tonight or Don't Be Messin' Round and dozens of other demos would have worse vocal quality than the Cascio songs, yet sound exactly like Michael, every single one of them.

 

[Chamife]

He had to have expected that if he releases songs that need a forensic to figure out who's singing, and especially if we've never seen a single trace of what these reports even are, then there will sure as hell be more ongoing questions that need to be answered.

I agree. This was to be expected. Or maybe he didn't? Don't know.

The recognition of Michael's voice by people who worked closely with Michael is something that puzzles me though.

Did they listen to something different?

 

[Lucilla]

Just a little something.

It would be great if people stop throwing random numbers about how many doubters or believers are because nobody will know that.

Sales don’t represent a number either. A lot of doubters here bought the album Michael, me included.

And I also know doubters who don’t get involved in these discussions. Most of them give me the same reasons: They want to forget about it or they think that there’s nothing else to discuss. Lol

But we all have something in common; we just don’t hear The Michael Jackson in those songs.

That's all, please continue :flowers:

 

[Arklove]

Just a little something.

It would be great if people stop throwing random numbers about how many doubters or believers are because nobody will know that.

Sales don’t represent a number either. A lot of doubters here bought the album Michael, me included.

And I also know doubters who don’t get involved in these discussions. Most of them give me the same reasons: They want to forget about it or they think that there’s nothing else to discuss. Lol

But we all have something in common; we just don’t hear The Michael Jackson in those songs.

That's all, please continue :flowers:

I've also noticed a lot of fans on this forum who never post in this debate thread are doubters. You can see random comments with new releases, leaks etc...For example, 'I love these new songs, they're awesome, and there are no fake vocals', or 'The BAD25 package is perfect, no fake voice', etc....These are just a few examples. And they pop up all the time.

 

[ivy]

I think one important thing to realize that different people might have different approaches to stuff. Matt Forger might love to talk about Michael and Eddie might not.

kreen mentioned the 2008 thread I was mentioning before about Angelikson in which Eddie was refusing to answer questions directly.

I did form some opinion based on my interactions - with Frank.

If you remember before Frank's book was released media had picked up the mention of drugs. It had angered people and many people were commenting negatively about Frank and his book.

I contacted Frank and asked him if he was aware of the ongoing negativity surrounding his book. He told me No. He explained to me it was actually something he learned from Michael. He mentioned Michael did not read to many of the things written about him and if he did he would go crazy. He told me that he had followed the same thing and he did not read the forums for comments. Assuming this also applies to Eddie this discussion here or on other forums might be something totally irrelevant to him. He might even be totally unaware of it.

Frank explained himself to me in great detail. I asked if I can write about what he told me and he said no. He knew his intentions and he also knew regardless of what he say some people's opinion would not change. Again very similar to what Michael did, he didn't have the need or want to correct anything and everything that was being said about him. The same approach might apply to Eddie as well.

Also I saw some saying that the hating and attacks on family wasn't that much or it wasn't significant but it was. On a unrelated time while talking about an unrelated subject, Frank mentioned some fans - by names / nicknames - and mentioned how they harassed his family - not himself but his family especially mother & father. These were the people that Frank wanted absolutely nothing to do with. So I'm sorry to say but here everyone also needs to put partial blame on themselves for not getting answers and not having a communication. Some behavior really hurt our chances. I as Ivy might try to get a Q&A through MJJC and seem reasonable and friendly by my approach but it doesn't make them forget other parties and their behavior.