Monster - The Great Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

[Mj4ever23]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I found a very weird ad-lib that is in the 2:27 of the song.
what do you think about it?
Maybe it's the proof that they had got the song without correct notes, and that "MJ" is singing to another beat that isn't in the final song, so it caused T.R to put the effects to enter him into the beat.
what do you think?

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

If you're referring to "Everybody wanna be a star", sounds correct to me.

 

[Mj4ever23]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

If you're referring to "Everybody wanna be a star", sounds correct to me.

yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
To me it sounds really weird and just like "not in the place" and out of the beat.

 

[WeegieMac]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I find this song to be the worst of the three, by far the worst track on the album, and by far the worst track out of MJ's entire catalog with the J5, Jacksons and solo career.

If I had to rank all of the songs MJ ever recorded by himself, with his brothers or as a guest artist, I don't know how I'd rank them, I just know this would be at the absolute bottom of the stack.

The vocals - to me - do not sound "processed", like a demo, like "guide vocals", or any of the multiple adjectives used to explain why it sounds like someone else. It flat-out sounds like someone else to me. I don't need evidence to explain what I'M hearing. Maybe its Michael Jackson. If it is great, - but to me, it still sounds like someone else and a horrible song.

I have to massively disagree, and it pains me that this could very well not be Michael singing because it's a bloody great track, one of my favourite on the album in terms of sound ... it's the only one that gets the old shoulders popping and the fingers snapping for me.

As I've said elsewhere though, Monster sounds more like Michael than 2000 Watts does on Invincible, and had we been able to swap Monster for 2000 Watts, we'd be sitting here right now saying 2000 Watts is an impersonator.

All this arguing and bitching, rightly or wrongly, is actually detracting from the fact us fans have some "new" material to blitz our ears with. And for that, no matter what the motives, we should be grateful to an extent.

 

[Triumph]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

nice modern song. i wish Michael Jackson would sing on it.

 

[WeegieMac]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

nice modern song. i wish Michael Jackson would sing on it.

What evidence is there that he doesn't?

I'm not interested in getting involved in bitching debates with other fans, I just want a simple answer.

And, "it doesn't sound like him" or "I've been a fan for x-amount of years and I know his voice" are not valid arguments, because those would be your opinion and no more or less valid than someone who believes Michael is singing Monster.

 

[mariemarie]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

this song is off the hook, goddamn unk:unk:unk:

 

[No One]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Smooth, I would really appreciate it if you explained this post you made after the Streaming of Breaking News...

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/sh...postcount=2950

"^ It's felt like the twilight zone.

For those who are interested, I spoke with my source on the phone for over 30 minutes tonight regarding this whole mess. This is coming straight from Sony: the vocals are over 50% not MJ's, they did hire an impersonator to run over the majority of MJ's pre-existing vocals and tried to hide it with production.

The remaining Cascio tracks including "Monster" are all in the same boat with some MJ vocals and some imposter vocals. There will be a big meeting tomorrow at Sony where they will discuss the future of this album. More to come..."

Excellent post. Smooth, you have been saying recently how much you're sure the vocals on the Cascio tracks are MJ. So you don't believe your own Sony source? Assuming you ever had one..........

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

A CHALLENGE AND A PROOF


Many expressed their respective opinions. Now we really need some facts.

Here is one of them: when I first listened to Phillinganes version of "Behind The Mask" I already tried to imagine Michael singing the song. I liked the song, but the voice was just plain and too much ordinary, despite phillinganes huge talent. Even Eric Clapton's version has the same effect - complete flatness. I could compare it to "flat water".

Out of experience as a MJ fan I knew that if MJ sang it his voice would bring some freshness on that song. Something like "sparkling water" or in other words his so recognizable husky voice at times. And as a matter of fact, you can clearly hear that Michael sings the song with that spark that we all fans know very well and what actually makes Michael's voice so special.

Now, we've all heard many imitators trying to reach high pitches and have the same voice timbre and sing as high as Michael. Indeed some imitate him quite well, we must admit it, since they can fool non fans and even some MJ fans. I am not necessarily talking about Jason Malachi's voice in some of his songs or in some parts of his songs, but also about artists such as Tom Fox in the song "Wayfaring Stranger". For quite a long time many MJ fans believed it was MJ singing "Neverland Landing" or another Michael's unreleased song.

However, even if some fans have been fooled by some artists reaching high notes and having almost the same voice timbre as Michael, to this day I have never heard any imitator being able to imitate Michael's husky voice or what I like to call Michael's "sparkling" voice.

Clearly Michael does not sing in every song with his "sparkling" voice, but when he does it, it is mostly on his fast songs.

When the supposed Michael sings Monster or BN, when you most expect to hear that spark in some pitches you don't hear it at all. It is flat. Completely flat! As flat as when Phillinganes or Clapton sing Behind the mask!

Furthermore, when you hear in some parts of the song Monster the supposed spark in the voice like when the singer says "...stalking me..." it sounds nothing else but an attempt to have Michael's spark. In reality, Michael's original spark is absent and what is more, it is not Michael's accent at all when you hear the singer say it.

Unfortunately we do not possess demos of Monster or Breaking news to prove it as a fact, nevertheless Teddy told us that the voice on those tracks sounds different because of heavy processing.

@ Teddy: Fair enough Teddy, and I want to believe you without a slightest doubt. But I need more than just your word.

Now, nothing prevents us to do the job the other way round. We all have plenty of Michael's demos, don't we?

Well, here is the deal: I am challenging anyone among fans to pick any Michael's demo and heavily process it in order to obtain exactly the same voice timbre and accents and huskiness and sparks as in the Cascio tracks Monster or Breaking News.

If Teddy claims he did it with bad quality demos, he can also do it with good quality demos and obtain the same results in terms of "different voice sound". I think that way Teddy could prove Tarryll was wrong and in the same time relief some fans who are having hard time to recognize their idol on the Cascio tracks.

So fans, here we are, let's process and try to obtain the same results.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Good idea, anybody know what program we can use to process the demos on a home computer?

 

[Arklove]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

^^ I agree...that is a good idea....

 

[love is magical]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I hope someone with record mixing experience will take Bumper's challenge. Prentend you are Teddy Riley for a moment, play around the demos and see what you can come up with.

I'm curious to know what the overly processed In the Back, Beautiful Girl, Fall Again, etc. sound like.

 

[MJFan07]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

The family has a legal right to sue, should they have the substantial proof to support their claim. QUOTE]

On what basis can they sue? It's not their music and they have no legal right to it. As consumers who have paid for a phoney product they can sue, but simply being related has no bearing in this.

 

[1offthewall1]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I have to massively disagree, and it pains me that this could very well not be Michael singing because it's a bloody great track, one of my favourite on the album in terms of sound ... it's the only one that gets the old shoulders popping and the fingers snapping for me.

As I've said elsewhere though, Monster sounds more like Michael than 2000 Watts does on Invincible, and had we been able to swap Monster for 2000 Watts, we'd be sitting here right now saying 2000 Watts is an impersonator.

All this arguing and bitching, rightly or wrongly, is actually detracting from the fact us fans have some "new" material to blitz our ears with. And for that, no matter what the motives, we should be grateful to an extent.

i can assure you that this version of "monster" sounds nothing like the invincible "monster". the vocals, tempo and melody were probably the same but the instrumentation was definitely put together within the last year.

 

[WeegieMac]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

i can assure you that this version of "monster" sounds nothing like the invincible "monster". the vocals, tempo and melody were probably the same but the instrumentation was definitely put together within the last year.

I'm not sure if you're not following me, or vice versa.

By the "Invincible Monster", I presume you referring to 2000 Watts or was there an earlier demo version of Monster intended for Invincible? If so, how can I hear this "original" version?

I think it's a valid point that had Monster, as it is now, been on Invincible and 2000 Watts be on Michael today, we'd have people arguing over whether or not Michael is singing the song due to just how deep and processed his voice sounds. To me, 2000 Watts, is the most un-Michael sounding Michael Jackson song I know.

That's the thing though, all our ears are different and we hear things differently. Sony are never going to admit they hired an impersonator to either entirely sing "new" songs or touch up raw vocals.

It's just a shame that songs on the new album are being tainted by in-fighting and bickering by fans. I'm all for wanting legitimate Michael songs on any release, but for me personally it detracts from the song more knowing that there's such a furore surrounding the track.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

i can assure you that this version of "monster" sounds nothing like the invincible "monster". the vocals, tempo and melody were probably the same but the instrumentation was definitely put together within the last year.

There was no Invincible "Monster", what that person was saying was, if Monster was on Invincible and we got 2000 Watts today on the new album, it'd be the same situation we have now. At least, I think that's what they were trying to say.

@ MJFan, the family has a right to sue for fraud, anyone does in reality, but since they started this whole thing, they'd be the ones hard pressed to do so. Again, all they have to do is gather the substantial proof and take it to court.

 

[dangerous_88]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Ah I don't know what to believe about this one, it is so nerve-wrecking!

 

[dani79]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Many expressed their respective opinions. Now we really need some facts.



I have never heard any imitator being able to imitate Michael's husky voice or what I like to call Michael's "sparkling" voice.

Clearly Michael does not sing in every song with his "sparkling" voice, but when he does it, it is mostly on his fast songs.

When the supposed Michael sings Monster or BN, when you most expect to hear that spark in some pitches you don't hear it at all. It is flat. Completely flat! As flat as when Phillinganes or Clapton sing Behind the mask!

Furthermore, when you hear in some parts of the song Monster the supposed spark in the voice like when the singer says "...stalking me..." it sounds nothing else but an attempt to have Michael's spark. In reality, Michael's original spark is absent and what is more, it is not Michael's accent at all when you hear the singer say it.

:clapping:

I couldn't agree more.

 

[BabeBeMine]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Actually MJ sings better on slower songs than faster songs as he got older.

For example "Behind the Mask" vocals are ten times better than "Hollywood Tonight"

Mike when he was older could sing slow songs smooth and great, but when he had to speed his voice up with range at the same time, it wasn't the same as younger MJ

 

[loka]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Actually MJ sings better on slower songs than faster songs as he got older.

For example "Behind the Mask" vocals are ten times better than "Hollywood Tonight"

Mike when he was older could sing slow songs smooth and great, but when he had to speed his voice up with range at the same time, it wasn't the same as younger MJ

any news on the studio footage of MJ singing Monster ?

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

First of all, the bolded no one, was in reference to those who are most vocal about it and have yet to do anything, The Jacksons. Not that certain fan, but of course, you rather jump to conclusions than to ask someone what they meant by that.


At the end of the day, it's all about what have you done for me lately? What have the master doubters done for their followers? Which was what I was getting at, sorry you just happened to misunderstand that.




That's the farthest from the truth and that's not really how fraud works. The family has a legal right to sue, should they have the substantial proof to support their claim. Once the Jackson's launch that initial lawsuit, and judge rules in support of them, the fans can then legally sue for refunds from the recording company that committed such fraud.

Very weak argument.

Randy Jackson has gone on record claiming the tracks are bogus. And has voiced his concerns publicly. Taryll Jackson has gone on record claiming the tracks are bogus. And has voiced his concerns publicly. Latoya Jackson has gone on record claiming the tracks are bogus. And has voiced his concerns publicly. Cory Rooney has gone on record claiming the tracks are bogus. And has voiced his concerns publicly.

If I were Sony, and I 'knew' the tracks were Michael Jackson's, I would sue all of the above for libel and disparagement. The fact that Sony haven't done that (probably because they can't do that) speaks volumes.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

any news on the studio footage of MJ singing Monster ?

Yeah. They're still recording it!

 

[mariemarie]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Very weak argument.

If I were Sony, and I 'knew' the tracks were Michael Jackson's, I would sue all of the above for libel and disparagement. The fact that Sony haven't done that (probably because they can't do that) speaks volumes.

Or they see it as a PR marketing strategy. We know how some people say that all PR is good PR, no matter what, so they just let the family, friends and fans discuss this topic to death and beyond. It keeps the album going, and they can just sit back and say, look, we had FBI, CIA and GOD on this, it's him, but what can do you? Cash is running in, it's all good, it's their job...

Yep yep and yep, the PR around MJ have always been a little different when it comes down to it. I am just saying.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Or they see it as a PR marketing strategy. We know how some people say that all PR is good PR, no matter what, so they just let the family, friends and fans discuss this topic to death and beyond. It keeps the album going, and they can just sit back and say, look, we had FBI, CIA and GOD on this, it's him, but what can do you? Cash is running in, it's all good, it's their job...

Yep yep and yep, the PR around MJ have always been a little different when it comes down to it. I am just saying.

Yeah I can really see Sony and Teddy Riley loving the fact that they're being called a bunch of crooks. I can really see how that would be great PR for them!! Teddy must love the fact that he's insulted Quincy Jones, Will.I.Am, referred to female fans as prostitutes... yeah... I can really see that as being great PR. My mistake!

 

[barok232]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Actually MJ sings better on slower songs than faster songs as he got older.

For example "Behind the Mask" vocals are ten times better than "Hollywood Tonight"

Mike when he was older could sing slow songs smooth and great, but when he had to speed his voice up with range at the same time, it wasn't the same as younger MJ

:rolleyes2: Whatever you say....Seth! (doctor's orders)

 

[love is magical]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Actually MJ sings better on slower songs than faster songs as he got older.

For example "Behind the Mask" vocals are ten times better than "Hollywood Tonight"

Mike when he was older could sing slow songs smooth and great, but when he had to speed his voice up with range at the same time, it wasn't the same as younger MJ

I disagree with you. Michael's ability as a vocalist has nothing to do with his age. I think his voice sounds the best in Invincible. Michael never has problem with fast song. Listen to Shout again. Who else can sing with such speed and accuracy?

 

[Arklove]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I disagree with you. Michael's ability as a vocalist has nothing to do with his age. I think his voice sounds the best in Invincible. Michael never has problem with fast song. Listen to Shout again. Who else can sing with such speed and accuracy?

I agree....Actually, I've always thought that Invincible was his best as far as vocal range....The vocals on that album are out of this world...

 

[flutinggnee]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Invincible is just so underrated. He did some amazing things on that album--vocally, technically, etc. I'm tired of hearing people disparage it. Just my little rant....Back to the topic.
"Threatened", to me, is much more convincing and interesting than "Monster."

 

[ivy]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

If I were Sony, and I 'knew' the tracks were Michael Jackson's, I would sue all of the above for libel and disparagement. The fact that Sony haven't done that (probably because they can't do that) speaks volumes.

a little law information is your best friend. your argument is flawed as it doesn't differentiate between what falls under "freedom of speech" and what is "libel/slander/defamation" and overlooks the necessary conditions for libel/slander/ defamation.

to sue for label/ slander/ defamation

- a person or an organization should be openly named. so saying "the songs are fake/questionable" aren't grounds for label/slander/defamation , saying "X faked the songs" is grounds for label/slander/defamation
- in addition to label/slander/defamation such action should seek to bring "damages" to the reputation or finances. similarly "3 songs are fake but the other 7 are real support/but the album for those 7 songs" isn't grounds for a lawsuit, an active boycott is.

--- as you can see most of the actions of the Jackson's do not qualify for a libel/slander/defamation lawsuit - they either do not give out specific names / speak in general/ personal opinion format(freedom of speech) and/or do not advocate a boycott (saying things like "I can't tell you what to do" and avoiding "don't buy" kind of statements) on the contrary at least show support to some songs. ---

and finally

- the first step in these kind of lawsuits will be a "cease and desist letter" which is basically saying "stop what you are doing or we'll sue". Sony / estate might be sending such letters but they wouldn't become public knowledge unless the people receiving them make them public.

didn't you say that they sent a cease and desist letter to a website? If true it looks like they are evaluating their legal options.

and a note : if a such libel /slander/ defamation lawsuit happens the proof of burden will be again on the person making the statement , the main way to win such a lawsuit against you is to prove that what you are saying is the "truth".

 

[samhabib]

a little law information is your best friend. your argument is flawed as it doesn't differentiate between what falls under "freedom of speech" and what is "libel/slander/defamation" and overlooks the necessary conditions for libel/slander/ defamation.

to sue for label/ slander/ defamation

- a person or an organization should be openly named. so saying "the songs are fake/questionable" aren't grounds for label/slander/defamation , saying "X faked the songs" is grounds for label/slander/defamation
- in addition to label/slander/defamation such action should seek to bring "damages" to the reputation or finances. similarly "3 songs are fake but the other 7 are real support/but the album for those 7 songs" isn't grounds for a lawsuit, an active boycott is.

--- as you can see most of the actions of the Jackson's do not qualify for a libel/slander/defamation lawsuit - they either do not give out specific names / speak in general/ personal opinion format(freedom of speech) and/or do not advocate a boycott (saying things like "I can't tell you what to do" and avoiding "don't buy" kind of statements) on the contrary at least show support to some songs. ---

and finally

- the first step in these kind of lawsuits will be a "cease and desist letter" which is basically saying "stop what you are doing or we'll sue". Sony / estate might be sending such letters but they wouldn't become public knowledge unless the people receiving them make them public.

didn't you say that they sent a cease and desist letter to a website? If true it looks like they are evaluating their legal options.

Flawed?

According to your own definition (- a person or an organization should be openly named. so saying "the songs are fake/questionable" aren't grounds for label/slander/defamation , saying "X faked the songs" is grounds for label/slander/defamation), well how about this?

"I’ve always admired the talent of Teddy Riley, but after hearing him lie on Oprah I am terribly disappointed.

I remember when Teddy and I were at Encore listening to KYHU. We both knew it wasn’t my Uncle. He stopped working on it because (and I quote) “it didn’t sound enough like Michael. Michael doesn’t swing like that.” He also said he was only working on the Cascio records in hopes that he would eventually be given a “real Michael Jackson song.” As he knows, I never agreed with that logic. I’ll never forget when Teddy called me telling me, “I’m so excited, I finally got a ‘Michael record.’ It’s called Hollywood Tonight and it’s him.”

Frank hurt and betrayed my Uncle years ago, so when I learned about Eddie I wasn’t completely shocked. The names are different but the story’s the same. People taking advantage of my Uncle and now his legacy. I wish Oprah would have asked about the ridiculous amount these FAKE songs were sold to the estate for.

I will always love, protect and stand by my Uncle. I will forever be loyal to him and NOTHING can change that."

Taryll Jackson on Twitter

That's Taryll Jackson calling the Cascio songs fake, calling Teddy Riley a liar and claiming that Frank/Eddie hurt and betrayed Michael Jackson. I'd say that's 'naming names'.

Sony/Teddy/Frank/Eddie should sue Taryll Jackson, in that case.