Latest on MJJC

The Great Debate - Poll of Polls

Do I believe It Is Michael On The Three Tracks In Question.

  • Yes

    Votes: 152 39.6%

  • No

    Votes: 135 35.2%

  • I Can Not Decide

    Votes: 24 6.3%

  • Maybe in Parts

    Votes: 73 19.0%
  • Total voters
    384
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam, thank you so much again. Thank you so much for your reseach and explanations. Your love and devotion for Michael is undeniable. You got his message. Very few could notice the gestures you observed in TDCAU. I truly feel enlightened tonight.

Oh my god. What a genius he was! His intelligence, his wisdom and his courage are incredible. How he see himself as the platform to promote something very important! Truly amazing.

Michael Jackson is so underrated and misunderstood...

I'm proud to be a Michael Jackson fan. And, I'm determined to really his arts more deeply.
 
Last edited:
love is magical;3159433 said:
I'm proud to be a Michael Jackson fan.
Click to expand...

You really should be. The man was a powerhouse. An absolute powerhouse. That's why I say look at the songs HE wrote... they are INCREDIBLE. And full of political statements.

Wanna Be Startin' Somethin', for example.

"Lift Your Head Up High
And Scream Out To The World
"I Know I Am Someone"
And Let The Truth Unfurl
No One Can Hurt You Now
Because You Know What's True
Yes, I Believe In Me
So You Believe In You"

That's Jesse Jackson! Straight from Jesse Jackson's mantra at Civil Rights addresses back in the 60s:

"I am - Somebody. I may be poor, but I am - Somebody! I may be on welfare, but I am - Somebody! I may be uneducated, but I am - Somebody! I must be, I’m God’s child. I must be respected and protected. I am black and I am beautiful! I am - Somebody! Soul Power!"

An African American man, who has known Jesse Jackson for most of his life, would not write 'Scream Out To The World, "I Know I Am Someone"' by accident. That's so deeply profound and deeply political. All the while an African/Cameroonian chant is being sung in the background. Incredible man, Michael Jackson. Incredible man.
 
Just putting it out there for those who missed it in early November.

Jackie Jackson, November 9th: my friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album

Cory Rooney (has written and produced hit singles like Ain't It Funny by J.Lo and worked with Michael on yet unreleased music): I was in that room, and the majority of the people mentioned did NOT agree that it was MJ! Some felt it sounded like him but all agreed that there was nothing there that was consistent with any MJ habits (...) Both Dr Freeze and Teddy Riley sat with Taryll Jackson and myself and stated that they felt what we felt.

Taryll Jackson: in regards to the statement, I tried calling Howard's cell but couldn't reach him. (I wanted to hear from him directly). After calling his office, somebody confirmed that the statement did come from Howard. As I said before, there are many inaccuracies and omissions in that statement. For one, I was also in that meeting and that was not the outcome.

We are still waiting for confirmation that the statement yesterday by Howard Weitzman (on behalf of the estate) is real and official. There are many blatant inaccuracies and omissions which makes me think it is not.

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."

I questioned the validity of the vocals on "Breaking News" and several other songs of theirs that I've heard and they told me no other takes or tracks exist. They claim my uncle was so happy with the performance he instructed them to delete all the other files. (...) No outtakes, no other tracks, no backups, no proof. roughly 10 songs they turned in… same story for all of them. I asked for the computer it was created on... they said it broke. I asked for the original hard drive... they said it was destroyed. One dubious excuse after another.
 
OMG I really have to archive my readings... who was the author of that article again and where did it appear?
 
The Panther from BOW and the symbolism has been common knowledge for years. Not trying to take away from Sam's effort, in fact I applaud it, I'm just saying.
 
AnnieRUOkay89 said:
The Panther from BOW and the symbolism has been common knowledge for years. Not trying to take away from Sam's effort, in fact I applaud it, I'm just saying.
Click to expand...

Yes, I also know the meaning of the panther and its symbolism for ages. But, I have no idea about the correlation betweeen the official MJ logo and the panther logo, the meaning of the first verse of BOW, the George Washington statue, etc.

Black or White is very special to me. It's this song and video that first introduced me to Michael Jackson. Yet, I'm embarassed to admit I don't really know the deep message behind the song. Before, to me, the song is catchy pop tune, the video is entertaining. Little did I know the important social statement beneath the playful song. I don't know the song's message is more than racial harmony until Sam deciphered the elements of the lyrics and video in details.

What a genius Michael Jackson was! He's courageous enough to use himself as the platform and to channel his important message through his arts.
 
^ A genius. A certifiable genius.

It's that one word, and it's significance, that makes Black or White so political. It seems so innocuous when you hear it. But when you screw your head back on and think A. it's a song about racism and B. it's sung by an African American, suddenly that one word becomes a BIG deal.

"BOY is that girl with you?". 'Boy'. It's the word that racists have used for generations upon generations to describe blacks. 'Boy'.

Listen to the recent Stevie Wonder song, "What the fuss?", and hear him singing about the KKK. And look at the words he uses. "Should I be drivin thru a klantown, find a restaurant*to get me some food and someone says "hey BOY, we don't serve your kind..."

And then you go back to something as seemingly innocuous as Speed Demon. Where a white policeman says to a black motorist, "pull over BOY and get your ticket..."

And then you go back further still to something like Beat It. "Don't wanna be a BOY, you wanna be a man!" Who said that? Whose famous words are those? "I am not a boy! I am a man!". Which famous civil rights activist said that? Someone Michael studied and read about. And even sampled in his music. Ten points to the first correct answer :)*
 
samhabib said:
^ A genius. A certifiable genius.

It's that one word, and it's significance, that makes Black or White so political. It seems so innocuous when you hear it. But when you screw your head back on and think A. it's a song about racism and B. it's sung by an African American, suddenly that one word becomes a BIG deal.

"BOY is that girl with you?". 'Boy'. It's the word that racists have used for generations upon generations to describe blacks. 'Boy'.

Listen to the recent Stevie Wonder song, "What the fuss?", and hear him singing about the KKK. And look at the words he uses. "Should I be drivin thru a klantown, find a restaurant*to get me some food and someone says "hey BOY, we don't serve your kind..."

And then you go back to something as seemingly innocuous as Speed Demon. Where a white policeman says to a black motorist, "pull over BOY and get your ticket..."

And then you go back further still to something like Beat It. "Don't wanna be a BOY, you wanna be a man!" Who said that? Whose famous words are those? "I am not a boy! I am a man!". Which famous civil rights activist said that? Someone Michael studied and read about. And even sampled in his music. Ten points to the first correct answer :)*
Click to expand...

OK, but are you having a political campaign now?
(No problem, I love Obama :) )
 
samhabib said:
^ A genius. A certifiable genius.

It's that one word, and it's significance, that makes Black or White so political. It seems so innocuous when you hear it. But when you screw your head back on and think A. it's a song about racism and B. it's sung by an African American, suddenly that one word becomes a BIG deal.

"BOY is that girl with you?". 'Boy'. It's the word that racists have used for generations upon generations to describe blacks. 'Boy'.

Listen to the recent Stevie Wonder song, "What the fuss?", and hear him singing about the KKK. And look at the words he uses. "Should I be drivin thru a klantown, find a restaurant*to get me some food and someone says "hey BOY, we don't serve your kind..."

And then you go back to something as seemingly innocuous as Speed Demon. Where a white policeman says to a black motorist, "pull over BOY and get your ticket..."

And then you go back further still to something like Beat It. "Don't wanna be a BOY, you wanna be a man!" Who said that? Whose famous words are those? "I am not a boy! I am a man!". Which famous civil rights activist said that? Someone Michael studied and read about. And even sampled in his music. Ten points to the first correct answer :)*
Click to expand...

....you fascinate me....lol
 
I realize that many defend their right to opinion but neither side seem to care about each other's opinions. Consequently the debate that we are having seems to be a debate bewteen deaf people who won't accept anything else but their opinion or what they think is a fact.

Ok, I'll number some facts hereunder, but first we should bear in mind that without thinking and trusting our ears when it comes to those Cascio songs we are no better than brainless sheep following official statements.

Fact1: There is clearly a controversy over Cascio tracks, not only among fans but also among non fans and some memebers of family and Cascio themselves.

Fact2: Michael did work with SONY before and he DID have some issues regarding the promotion and his INVINCIBLE album. Michael did parade in London and spoke AGAINST Motolla and the group SONY.

Fact 3: SONY never sued Michael for the fact 2.

Fact 4: Michael never sued SONY for the fact 2.

Fact 5: Teddy Riley did work with Michael Jackson in the past and is undeniable that he knows how Michael works or sounds. He says it is Michael on the Cascio tracks.

Fact 6: 3T have worked with Michael and recorded one duet plus one song with Michael's backing vocals. In addition, they are his nephews and know how they uncle work or sound as much as Teddy Riley. They say it is not Michael on the Cascio tracks.

Fact 7: The Jacksons family, including his own mother, had worked and have known Michael all their life. They undoubtedly know how Michael works and definitely how Michael sounds. They say it is not Michael on those tracks.

Fact 8: Many MichaelJackson's fans bashed 3T before the release of Breaking News for stating that Cascio tracks are false even if those very fans hadn't heard the tracks yet. As soon as the very same fans heard the tracks they admitted for once that this time the Jackson family sounded more credible than the Cascios concerning those tracks.

Fact 9: Michael worked with his brothers. He split. Lots of jealousy and greed as well as many stories surrounding the Jacksons towards Michael were going on. Yet, they reunited at Madison Square Garden. And yes, the Jacksons were also united during Michael's bad moments and defended him.

Fact 10: The day after Michael's death, Joe Jackson coldbloodly took the opportunity to promote blu-ray technology while the whole world stood still because of his son's death. This gave the whole world an insight how Michael was treated and that greed was indeed around him.

Fact 11: Michael was according to the Cascios a part of their family for years, in good times as in bad times. As a matter of fact, michael apparenty did even not bother to warn the Cascios of his arrival and would show up in the middle of the night in front of their door.

Fact 12: The Cascios do have a studio in their basement.

Fact 13: Michael has lots of finished material in the vault.

Fact 14: Yet, SONY opts to invest in the Cascio tracks despite the controversy between the Jacksons opinion and Cascios' claims.

Fact 15: Fans have heard the tracks, and based solely on their ears, the fan community is divided on the question whether they hear Michael's leading vocals on the Cascio tracks or not.

So, I numbered I 15 important facts, among many other ones. These facts are enough to make a logical opinion without labeling it as a speculation.

Here is my logical pattern of thinking:

A) What does SONY want actually?
They invested money hoping to generate more money. So I think we can agree that SONY are purely business people.

B) What does the Jackson family want?
Knowing the greed expressed by Michael's father himself one or two days after his son's death, I would not be surprised that their interest is to take part in Michael's posthumous legacy. Because of their greed their credibility is questioned regarding their opinion on the authencity of Michael's vocals on the Cascio tracks. However, when we listen to the tracks, even if we do not support the Jacksons family or if we are not their fans, many among fans admitted that they share the Jacksons' opinion.

C) What does the Estate want?
Clearly their job is to protect Michael's legacy. In the same time they are seeking gains out of it. So, just like SONY, they are business people, but with the difference that they are supposed to care about Michael's legacy and avoid such a destructive controversy as we are experiencing it today. Regarding this posthumous album, the choices and the strategy were mediocre.

D) What does Teddy Riley want?
Employed by SONY, he wants to make it as perfect as possible in memory of his friend Michael Jackson, but at the end of the day he also wants his paycheck, despite the fact that he failed his mission, because as a matter of fact there is a big rift and controversy between fans due to Michael's unrecognizable vocals. He was even invited to explain himself with the Cascio family on Oprah show. This is not to be neglected.

E) What do the Cascios want?
As much as the Cascio were Michael's true friends. They stood for Michael in good and bad times. They were a family to him. They kept the secrecy. According to what they say they practically adopted Michael as a member of their own family... Now, the question is: WHAT DID MICHAEL DO FOR THEM IN EXCHANGE? ARE THEY ON HIS TESTAMENT?
Those two questions might sound rude or shocking, but think about it twice! If Michael's own blood, family, who grew up with and and who worked and spent time with him could seek financial interest in Michael out of greed (such as his own father advertizing blu-ray after his son's death), why wouldn't a foster Cascio family be able to do exactly the same thing knowing that Michael left them nothing at all after all what they had done for him? Just like Teddy Riley, at the end of the day they also get a paycheck.

After my A-B-C-D pattern opinion, here is the 16th fact:
The Cascios are unable to show a single proof that Michael recorded songs in their studio. No pictures, no videos, no handwritten notes,no rough or any other kind of demos, no actually nothing! However, the leading vocals DO sound differently from other vocals that Michael recorded in his entire life!
 
If I can add to some points

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Fact 3: SONY never sued Michael for the fact 2.

Fact 4: Michael never sued SONY for the fact 2.
Click to expand...

you shouldn't say "never sued" what if there wasn't grounds to sue? in that case you can't sue. It's not an option/decision to make.

Michael expressed his opinion about Sony and Mottola - that falls under freedom of speech. He didn't seek to do damages - such as a boycott or firing-, hence he couldn't be sued for defamation.

Similarly even though Michael weren't happy with Sony's promotion etc but Sony satisfied the conditions of their contract there wouldn't be grounds to sue.

Fact 6: 3T have worked with Michael and recorded one duet plus one song with Michael's backing vocals. In addition, they are his nephews and know how they uncle work or sound as much as Teddy Riley.
Click to expand...

"as much as" - recording 2 songs versus working on 3 albums. I'm not sure whether it can be classified as the same level. Are we going to say Akon know as much as Bruce Swedien or Will.i.am knows as much as Seth Riggs? I personally do not think so.

Fact 7: The Jacksons family, including his own mother, had worked and have known Michael all their life. They undoubtedly know how Michael works and definitely how Michael sounds. They say it is not Michael on those tracks.
Click to expand...

what makes you think Katherine even has any idea of what goes on in a studio? Plus Katherine and the kids objections are just tabloid report of RF. Also Janet, Tito, Rebbie and Marlon made no comments. Jackie's only comment is that he asked some songs to be not included - he didn't give any reasons. Brian Oxman's comment for Joe is that Michael wouldn't want posthumous albums released as he was a perfectionist - again no comment about vocals. So let's not generalize it to "The Jackson family says".

Fact 15: Fans have heard the tracks, and based solely on their ears, the fan community is divided on the question whether they hear Michael's leading vocals on the Cascio tracks or not.
Click to expand...

based solely - could be true for some but again I wouldn't generalize it to all. Power of conditioning and subconscious mind are powerful things. At the least we were listening to see the vocals were Michael's or not. It's not some realization that we came on our own, it was previously introduced as an idea to our minds.

D) What does Teddy Riley want?
Employed by SONY,
Click to expand...

define employed. He actually has a long term work history with Interscope and works at his own production company QDT. By his account on the radio show he was called by the estate and not yet paid. So he would be hired/paid on a project basis and not necessarily be employed and on constant payroll.

E) What do the Cascios want?
Now, the question is: WHAT DID MICHAEL DO FOR THEM IN EXCHANGE? ARE THEY ON HIS TESTAMENT?
why wouldn't a foster Cascio family be able to do exactly the same thing knowing that Michael left them nothing at all after all what they had done for him?
Click to expand...

sorry but how is this even remotely relevant? Michael decided to provide for his mother during his lifetime and left his everything to his children. This is a normal will- generally money goes to the next of kin which is in order husband/wife, kids, parents and then relatives. and it's not like he included tens of people and omitted Cascios - he only had his mother and his kids on there. So now everyone not mentioned in his will (meaning everyone expect his kids and mother) will be the evil? and you know what there are decent people in the world that do not care about money and can love a human being for who they are.Why do you automatically assume that every relation that Michael had has to be about greed and be fake. It's sad to see that we can't even give the people benefit of the doubt.
 
ivy said:
sorry but how is this even remotely relevant? Michael decided to provide for his mother during his lifetime and left his everything to his children. This is a normal will- generally money goes to the next of kin which is in order husband/wife, kids, parents and then relatives. and it's not like he included tens of people and omitted Cascios - he only had his mother and his kids on there. So now everyone not mentioned in his will (meaning everyone expect his kids and mother) will be the evil? and you know what there are decent people in the world that do not care about money and can love a human being for who they are.Why do you automatically assume that every relation that Michael had has to be about greed and be fake. It's sad to see that we can't even give the people benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I don't think Bumper is suggesting that the Cascios are evil. He simply stated all the facts the best he could. He didn't automatically assume the Cascios are greedy people. His post is written in a very reasonable manner.

On the other hand, we can't assume the Cascios are complety honest people neither. Bascially, we don't know much about this family.

Also, what do you think about Fact 16 raised by Bumper? Have you considered why there is absolutely no further supports on Michael's creative input in the Cascio tracks?
 
love is magical said:
Also, what do you think about Fact 16 raised by Bumper? Have you considered why there is absolutely no further supports on Michael's creative input in the Cascio tracks?
Click to expand...

that's at best an assumption at this point in time - not fact. We all heard the contrary rumors of handwritten lyrics, work tapes, and even studio footage of Monster ( I know they are mostly tabloid based and could be false but could be true as well). Regardless simply because we haven't seen proof doesn't automatically equals that it doesn't exists.

see that "fact" is based on the assumption that they need to show proof - in reality they don't. So "unable to show proof" is an assumption , it might be very well that they can show proof but choose to not entertain these comments, it's not like they are actually challenged. It's just twitter rants and fan discussions.

Plus if we are to go with that logic I can simply state "Fact 17: As Jackson's are unable to show a single solid proof that the vocals are fake (other than the personal opinion statement of " I know my uncle/brother"), and as half of the fan base thinks that the vocals sound like Michael's and several people worked with Michael swore that it's Michael's voice, their argument is invalid".

It all depends on how you'd like to look to the events.
 
ivy said:
that's at best an assumption at this point in time - not fact. We all heard the contrary rumors of handwritten lyrics, work tapes, and even studio footage of Monster ( I know they are mostly tabloid based and could be false but could be true as well). Simply because we haven't seen proof doesn't automatically equals that it doesn't exists.

see that "fact" is based on the assumption that they need to show proof - in reality they don't. So "unable to show proof" is an assumption , it might be very well that they can show proof but choose to not entertain these comments, it's not like they are actually challenged. It's just twitter rants and fan discussions.

Plus if we are to go with that logic I can simply state "Fact 17: As Jackson's are unable to show a single solid proof that the vocals are fake (other than the personal opinion statement of " I know my uncle/brother"), and as half of the fan base thinks that the vocals sound like Michael's and several people worked with Michael swore that it's Michael's voice, their argument is invalid".

It all depends on how you'd like to look to the events.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Although Sony, the Estate and the producers are not obligated to provide any "proof", I wonder why they didn't do so. See how they included the hand written note on Hollywood Tongiht and lyrics of Best of Joy in the booklet. These mean so much to me. Seeing Michael's thought process and words is priceless.

I have to say this controversy is way more than just twitter rants and fan discussions. This discussions wouldn't cause the reorgaination of this fan board and this long lasting if there is no merit to the discussion.

I'm sure Sony, the Estate, Eddie Cascio and Teddy Rily all know about the controversy the songs caused. The fact that the Estate released a statement after the streaming of Breaking News showed the Estate was indeed willing to clarify the situation. Then, why didn't the Esate show us supports, such as hand written notes, lyrics, photos, orignial unprocessed demos, video footage, etc.? Fans have never been this vocal on any one of Michael Jackson song, released in his life or posthumously. Yet, coincidentally, fans have doubt in the three tracts recorded in the Cascio session. What's so difficult about attaching a photo or a note together with the official statement? Why are they so reluctant?
 
ivy said:
Fact 17: As Jackson's are unable to show a single solid proof that the vocals are fake (other than the personal opinion statement of " I know my uncle/brother"), and as half of the fan base thinks that the vocals sound like Michael's and several people worked with Michael swore that it's Michael's voice, their argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

According to this poll more than half don't believe it's Michael on those tracks, so on what basis are you claiming 'half of the fans'?

"other than the personal opinion statement of " I know my uncle/brother" - I believe that's referred to as an 'educated opinion' rather than an 'opinion'. You can't damn the use of personal opinions while at the same time referring to the opinions of 'half of the fans' to support the tracks. It's a complete contradiction.

"Several people worked with Michael swore that it's Michael's voice" - you mean, people who stand to gain financially by claiming it's Michael? Yeah. No idea why they might have an ulterior motive...


ivy said:
It all depends on how you'd like to look to the events.
Click to expand...

I think it's fairer to say that it all depends on what you're hearing.

Their argument is anything but invalid.
 
@samhabib - that was a hypothetical statement to show the same logic applied to opposing point of view.

What's so difficult about attaching a photo or a note together with the official statement? Why are they so reluctant?
Click to expand...

okay I want an honest answer : would you believe them if they did? this is not addressed to you personally but in general.

if they come up with handwritten lyrics would you say that it's proof that Michael worked with them and that he could be singing on the songs. or are we going to see posts that his handwriting could be faked as well and it doesn't show that the sang the songs.

how about work tapes, discussing the songs? Will that convince you or will you say that they are not proof that he sang the songs?

a picture of Michael in the studio? a footage? I mean I read post after post people saying that it could be faked it could be dubbed over etc. again will it be satisfactory that he sang those songs?

I mean look to some of the reaction to the statement "they are lying because they have monetary gain, names of the experts aren't mentioned, experts are paid by them, we haven't heard these from the mouth of the people that are mentioned" etc etc. People had already made their minds and weren't open to the contradictory information.

My personal opinion is that everyone had already made their minds and strong opinions wouldn't change - no matter what. So it would be a futile attempt.

again - you isn't directed to you personally.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
I realize that many defend their right to opinion but neither side seem to care about each other's opinions. Consequently the debate that we are having seems to be a debate bewteen deaf people who won't accept anything else but their opinion or what they think is a fact.

Ok, I'll number some facts hereunder, but first we should bear in mind that without thinking and trusting our ears when it comes to those Cascio songs we are no better than brainless sheep following official statements.

Fact1: There is clearly a controversy over Cascio tracks, not only among fans but also among non fans and some memebers of family and Cascio themselves.

Fact2: Michael did work with SONY before and he DID have some issues regarding the promotion and his INVINCIBLE album. Michael did parade in London and spoke AGAINST Motolla and the group SONY.

Fact 3: SONY never sued Michael for the fact 2.

Fact 4: Michael never sued SONY for the fact 2.

Fact 5: Teddy Riley did work with Michael Jackson in the past and is undeniable that he knows how Michael works or sounds. He says it is Michael on the Cascio tracks.

Fact 6: 3T have worked with Michael and recorded one duet plus one song with Michael's backing vocals. In addition, they are his nephews and know how they uncle work or sound as much as Teddy Riley. They say it is not Michael on the Cascio tracks.

Fact 7: The Jacksons family, including his own mother, had worked and have known Michael all their life. They undoubtedly know how Michael works and definitely how Michael sounds. They say it is not Michael on those tracks.

Fact 8: Many MichaelJackson's fans bashed 3T before the release of Breaking News for stating that Cascio tracks are false even if those very fans hadn't heard the tracks yet. As soon as the very same fans heard the tracks they admitted for once that this time the Jackson family sounded more credible than the Cascios concerning those tracks.

Fact 9: Michael worked with his brothers. He split. Lots of jealousy and greed as well as many stories surrounding the Jacksons towards Michael were going on. Yet, they reunited at Madison Square Garden. And yes, the Jacksons were also united during Michael's bad moments and defended him.

Fact 10: The day after Michael's death, Joe Jackson coldbloodly took the opportunity to promote blu-ray technology while the whole world stood still because of his son's death. This gave the whole world an insight how Michael was treated and that greed was indeed around him.

Fact 11: Michael was according to the Cascios a part of their family for years, in good times as in bad times. As a matter of fact, michael apparenty did even not bother to warn the Cascios of his arrival and would show up in the middle of the night in front of their door.

Fact 12: The Cascios do have a studio in their basement.

Fact 13: Michael has lots of finished material in the vault.

Fact 14: Yet, SONY opts to invest in the Cascio tracks despite the controversy between the Jacksons opinion and Cascios' claims.

Fact 15: Fans have heard the tracks, and based solely on their ears, the fan community is divided on the question whether they hear Michael's leading vocals on the Cascio tracks or not.

So, I numbered I 15 important facts, among many other ones. These facts are enough to make a logical opinion without labeling it as a speculation.

Here is my logical pattern of thinking:

A) What does SONY want actually?
They invested money hoping to generate more money. So I think we can agree that SONY are purely business people.

B) What does the Jackson family want?
Knowing the greed expressed by Michael's father himself one or two days after his son's death, I would not be surprised that their interest is to take part in Michael's posthumous legacy. Because of their greed their credibility is questioned regarding their opinion on the authencity of Michael's vocals on the Cascio tracks. However, when we listen to the tracks, even if we do not support the Jacksons family or if we are not their fans, many among fans admitted that they share the Jacksons' opinion.

C) What does the Estate want?
Clearly their job is to protect Michael's legacy. In the same time they are seeking gains out of it. So, just like SONY, they are business people, but with the difference that they are supposed to care about Michael's legacy and avoid such a destructive controversy as we are experiencing it today. Regarding this posthumous album, the choices and the strategy were mediocre.

D) What does Teddy Riley want?
Employed by SONY, he wants to make it as perfect as possible in memory of his friend Michael Jackson, but at the end of the day he also wants his paycheck, despite the fact that he failed his mission, because as a matter of fact there is a big rift and controversy between fans due to Michael's unrecognizable vocals. He was even invited to explain himself with the Cascio family on Oprah show. This is not to be neglected.

E) What do the Cascios want?
As much as the Cascio were Michael's true friends. They stood for Michael in good and bad times. They were a family to him. They kept the secrecy. According to what they say they practically adopted Michael as a member of their own family... Now, the question is: WHAT DID MICHAEL DO FOR THEM IN EXCHANGE? ARE THEY ON HIS TESTAMENT?
Those two questions might sound rude or shocking, but think about it twice! If Michael's own blood, family, who grew up with and and who worked and spent time with him could seek financial interest in Michael out of greed (such as his own father advertizing blu-ray after his son's death), why wouldn't a foster Cascio family be able to do exactly the same thing knowing that Michael left them nothing at all after all what they had done for him? Just like Teddy Riley, at the end of the day they also get a paycheck.

After my A-B-C-D pattern opinion, here is the 16th fact:
The Cascios are unable to show a single proof that Michael recorded songs in their studio. No pictures, no videos, no handwritten notes,no rough or any other kind of demos, no actually nothing! However, the leading vocals DO sound differently from other vocals that Michael recorded in his entire life!
Click to expand...

Great Post. The only part I disagree with is the part in bold. Or rather, I agree that's their job, however I don't think that's how they see it. I don't want to be cynical, but I think they see their job as making as much money for themselves as possible for the timeperiod that they will be in charge, which is a fairly short timeperiod in comparison to how long MJ's legacy will carry on for.
 
ivy said:
okay I want an honest answer : would you believe them if they did? this is not addressed to you personally but in general.

if they come up with handwritten lyrics would you say that it's proof that Michael worked with them and that he could be singing on the songs. or are we going to see posts that his handwriting could be faked as well and it doesn't show that the sang the songs.

how about work tapes, discussing the songs? Will that convince you or will you say that they are not proof that he sang the songs?

a picture of Michael in the studio? a footage? I mean I read post after post people saying that it could be faked it could be dubbed over etc. again will it be satisfactory that he sang those songs?

I mean look to some of the reaction to the statement "they are lying because they have monetary gain, names of the experts aren't mentioned, experts are paid by them, we haven't heard these from the mouth of the people that are mentioned" etc etc. People had already made their minds and weren't open to the contradictory information.

My personal opinion is that everyone had already made their minds and strong opinions wouldn't change - no matter what. So it would be a futile attempt.

again - you isn't directed to you personally.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest with you, it will take a lot to convince me personally. Much of what you mention here wouldn't be enough for me because my ears tell me differently.

I don't think MJ's involvement in the song is the issue here, it's the issue of lead vocals. He may well have been involved, but that's not the issue. Handwritten lyrics, in-studio discussion of the songs, pictures in the studio etc. would just support MJ's involvement. Lead vocal is key here.

The only thing that would convince me is if I saw MJ singing it with that same voice we hear in the song or if someone could reproduce MJ's true vocals from the voice in the song.

The idea of impartial scientific analysis would certainly enter my consideration, but if it didn't confirm what I'm hearing, I'd probably take it with a grain of salt. Ultimately my own ears are judge, jury, and executioner.
 
ivy said:
I cannot tell you how much JM talk bugs me personally. To be clear I do not mind the vocals authenticity discussion or people saying that the vocals possibly aren't Michael's. What bugs me is the constant push of claims that they are JM's. It seems like almost advocating and promoting JM.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it. Some fans have mentioned his name and listened to his songs more then they did MJ's in the last two months and spreading it all over the Internet. I bet he's loving it. It's sad.
 
ivy said:
@samhabib - that was a hypothetical statement to show the same logic applied to opposing point of view.



okay I want an honest answer : would you believe them if they did? this is not addressed to you personally but in general.

if they come up with handwritten lyrics would you say that it's proof that Michael worked with them and that he could be singing on the songs. or are we going to see posts that his handwriting could be faked as well and it doesn't show that the sang the songs.

how about work tapes, discussing the songs? Will that convince you or will you say that they are not proof that he sang the songs?

a picture of Michael in the studio? a footage? I mean I read post after post people saying that it could be faked it could be dubbed over etc. again will it be satisfactory that he sang those songs?

I mean look to some of the reaction to the statement "they are lying because they have monetary gain, names of the experts aren't mentioned, experts are paid by them, we haven't heard these from the mouth of the people that are mentioned" etc etc. People had already made their minds and weren't open to the contradictory information.

My personal opinion is that everyone had already made their minds and strong opinions wouldn't change - no matter what. So it would be a futile attempt.

again - you isn't directed to you personally.
Click to expand...

For the Cascio tracks, if they provide us some kind of hand-written notes and/or work tapes, it will ease a lot of my doubts. This is an honest answer.

I'm really willing to change my opinon. Like many have expreseed before, we are more than willing to be proven wrong. I have no ego issue here. I'd rather listen all the songs on the album with confidence that the songs are produced with integrity than having doubt.

All songs on the album except the Cascio tracks have some kind of supports that can vouch for Michael's creative inputs.

Hold My Hand - a duet with Akon. Akon described how he sent the song to Michael for his consideration, how Michael's inputs pushed the song to a whole new level. Taryll even mentioned in his tweet that Michael played the song to him in a Vegas hotel room.

Hollywood Tonight - a handwritten note on the concept of the song is included in the booklet.

The Way You Love Me - the voicemail from Michael at the beginning of the song and the demo version released in TUC.

Best of Joy - a handwritten lyric sheet is included in the iTune exclusive.

Another Day - the fact that the song is an outtake from the Invincible session is well documented.

Behind The Mask - it's well documented that Michael liked the song from the Yellow Magic Orchestra, added lyrics and recorded it.

Much Too Soon - there is a note from Michael to Bruce Swedien saying one of the takes is great.

Now, there is nothing of any sort that can validate the Cascio tracks. I'm not playing Shelock Holmes here. I'm not even trying to dig out evidence on every single Michael Jackson song. The above just came out to the public.

Also, take a look to the post written by Alec in the Monster thread, how can a fan not raise any question after reading his comments? Michael Jackson was the producer of his producers and a musicologist. If he intended to record 12 songs, would he not record the songs in a studio with adequate equipments? Would he settle with less than perfect recording environment? We all have heard Michael's demos before. Almost no demos I've heard are lyrically complete. All three Cascio tracks are with complete vocals and lyrics; yet, no working tapes? This simply is not how Michael Jackson worked in the past.

To answer your question again, if Eddie Cascio provides the fans the original unprocessed tape, tape with Michael's instructions, ideas, Michael's handwritten notes, it will add a lot to his credibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top