The Great Debate - Poll of Polls

[kopwatcher]

Indeed. It would be almost too easy wouldn't it?

 

[Kapital77]

will.i.am wasn't referring to any vocals, Kapital77.

This site is doing the same thing like you're doing on MJHideOut: Trying to push an OPINION as fact based on ASSUMPTIONS.
These threads will always be remembered.

Anyway, you have revealed a lot about what you believe at MaxJax, so it's pointless to try to make you think logical. You're full of hate and distrust towards Sony, the MJ Estate, the Cascio family, Frank DiLeo etc.

You are incredible in your coments.

Amazing !!!

Will i am talked about breaking news and this is what he said: "'That ain't Mike."

¿What more he needed to say?

You are talking about Mjhideout where there are a lot of people who thinks that is not MJ.

And also, Mjhideout support, like many others fan clubs, that the Cascio´s tracks shouldn´t be included in the "Michael" album:

And it´s not only Will i am:

"Yes I heard a bit of the new MJ song. Doesn't sound anything like him. Very wierd." - Jennifer Batten.

Rodney Jerkins

Chris Cadman from "For the record".

Tony Kurtis, Jason Malachi´s ex productor.

Etc.. etc... etc...




KORGNEX .... Your talk is CHEAP.

AND OF COURSE THAT YOU WILL BE REMEMBERED..... AS DEFENSOR OF THOSE TRACKS.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Not, not only because we did not hear Mj on those songs.... it´s because we are not alone:



And because the Video/audio comparations say our truth.

Check them here, ultil Cascio´s arrive an close the web:

See, this is how so many people become influenced. If you actually read the Will.I.Am article, which I'm assuming you haven't, he doesn't say anything about the vocals, he was referring to the overall production of the song, as being something "Michael wouldn't do". It's stated in the article, I find it funny how many of you opt to overlook that to benefit an argument. Again Kapital, you just can't take one word of a statement and assume that's what he meant, especially since the following statements he made really bring home the point that he was referring to the overall production.


Tony Kurtis isn't a reliable source, despite being "Malachi's long time producer", he hasn't filed any legal action, he hasn't brought his master Malachi tapes forward, and his "Breaking News master" was nothing more than the original leaked acapella, pitched to sound more like Malachi. If you want to put your faith in a guy like that, be my guest, but I'm just saying he's far from reliable.


As far as everyone else, all you have them saying is, "It doesn't sound like him", and the likes of Quincy Jones, who says in one interview, "he can't tell", but a week later says in another one, "It sounds like Mike, but it's layered with so many voices". Which doesn't really benefit any side, IMO.

 

[Arklove]

^^ To me, it didn't sound like he was talking about production...When somone says, 'That ain't Mike'...to me, that's like, NOT his voice...It's NOT Michael Jackson...I didn't get the impression he was talking about just the production....He didn't clarify either way, so we can all interpret it the way we want..But, to me, him saying 'That ain't Mike'...how else would I interpret it...? It's not so hard for people to think..'hmm...that's not Michael Jackson'...because, plain and simple, to A LOT of people, it doesn't sound like Michael Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination...

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

^^ To me, it didn't sound like he was talking about production...When somone says, 'That ain't Mike'...to me, that's like, NOT his voice...It's NOT Michael Jackson...I didn't get the impression he was talking about just the production....He didn't clarify either way, so we can all interpret it the way we want..But, to me, him saying 'That ain't Mike'...how else would I interpret it...? It's not so hard for people to think..'hmm...that's not Michael Jackson'...because, plain and simple, to A LOT of people, it doesn't sound like Michael Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination...

But it is clarified,

“Whoever put it out and is profiting off of it, I want to see how cold they are, to say that what [Michael] contributed during his life wasn’t enough. He just wasn’t any ordinary artist. He was a hands-on person. To me it’s disrespectful. There’s no honoring. Michael Jackson songs are finished when Michael says they’re finished. Maybe if I never worked with him I wouldn’t have this perspective. He was very particular about how he wanted his vocals, the reverb he used…he was that hands-on.”

"I knew this man," he told Scaggs. "And he was very critical about every single detail. He stood in the studio himself, mastering and mixing everything. How can you release a record without that Michael Jackson? It's not Michael Jackson. I heard the song that's on the Internet now ['Breaking News'] and I'm like, 'That ain't Mike.' He wasn't there to do his micro-Michael-managing that he did with 'Thriller' and 'Billie Jean.' It disgusts me."

That's not clarification? He clearly, vividly states why he said "That ain't Mike". Like said, when it's clearly stated, how can you just assume he meant something else? Whether it's to benefit your argument or not, he never said anything regarding the vocals.

 

[Arklove]

I don't see a 'clear, vivid' explanation...Still seems vague to me....He doesn't say clearly what he meant by that....Either way, whatever he says doesn't influence what I think or hear...My ears do....If he said, 'It is Mike'....Still wouldn't make a difference to me....I don't need someone telling me what I'm hearing...

 

[Kapital77]

I don't see a 'clear, vivid' explanation...Still seems vague to me....He doesn't say clearly what he meant by that....Either way, whatever he says doesn't influence what I think or hear...My ears do....If he said, 'It is Mike'....Still wouldn't make a difference to me....I don't need someone telling me what I'm hearing...

In a moment when the doubts and debate about the fake tracks is everywhere...

Why he said: " I heard the song that's on the Internet now ['Breaking News'] and I'm like, 'That ain't Mike.'".?

Is totally clarified that when he was talking about Breaking news, he was telling that the singer is not MJ.

 

[Arklove]

^^ Exactly! I mean, how much clearer can you get?

 

[Korgnex]

Why he said: " I heard the song that's on the Internet now ['Breaking News'] and I'm like, 'That ain't Mike.'".?

Is totally clarified that when he was talking about Breaking news, he was telling that the singer is not MJ.

LOL! He's just said it doesn't sound like a record MJ would do. He didn't say anything about the vocals!!!

That's YOUR INTERPRETATION.

Kapital77, please don't make up things that are simply not there. You're not being objective. Try it at least.
The thread you've created at MJHideOut is full of such claims. No wonder why MJHideOut is one of those forums where these theories are influencing people (whatever they might hear or not).

See, this is how so many people become influenced. If you actually read the Will.I.Am article, which I'm assuming you haven't, he doesn't say anything about the vocals, he was referring to the overall production of the song, as being something "Michael wouldn't do". It's stated in the article, I find it funny how many of you opt to overlook that to benefit an argument. Again Kapital, you just can't take one word of a statement and assume that's what he meant, especially since the following statements he made really bring home the point that he was referring to the overall production.


Tony Kurtis isn't a reliable source, despite being "Malachi's long time producer", he hasn't filed any legal action, he hasn't brought his master Malachi tapes forward, and his "Breaking News master" was nothing more than the original leaked acapella, pitched to sound more like Malachi. If you want to put your faith in a guy like that, be my guest, but I'm just saying he's far from reliable.


As far as everyone else, all you have them saying is, "It doesn't sound like him", and the likes of Quincy Jones, who says in one interview, "he can't tell", but a week later says in another one, "It sounds like Mike, but it's layered with so many voices". Which doesn't really benefit any side, IMO.

 

[Arklove]

^^ Just like it's YOUR interpretation that he meant production.....Although, I don't understand how you interpret any of what he said relates to production because he clearly says..'That ain't Mike...'....

?? But, moving on....we can argue this forever...lol

 

[Korgnex]

Chris Cadman from "For the record".

I don't care what other people or friends of mine (Chris Cadman is a friend of mine) are saying.
My friendship with them won't break. Our discussion has no impact on this.


A lot of die hard collectors can be wrong. The same goes for forums that have joined these ill-fated boycott campaigns.

^^ Just like it's YOUR interpretation that he meant production.....Although, I don't understand how you interpret any of what he said relates to production because he clearly says..'That ain't Mike...'....

The CONTEXT clearly indicates what he was talking about.

 

[L.T.D]

I have to say, I do think he was talking about the production here.

The bit afterwards where he mentions MJ not being there to do his 'micro-Michael-managing' suggests he was talking about the overall production of the song. Basically that Michael wasnt there to put his finishing touches on it so therefore it 'aint Mike'.

 

[Arklove]

I have to say, I do think he was talking about the production here.

The bit afterwards where he mentions MJ not being there to do his 'micro-Michael-managing' suggests he was talking about the overall production of the song. Basically that Michael wasnt there to put his finishing touches on it so therefore it 'aint Mike'.

Oh, no doubt...But, I personally think he meant both....

 

[L.T.D]

Who knows what Will.I.am is talking about most of the time, he's never been much of a talker.

I remember he was on the X Factor with Cheryl Cole at her house, one of the contestants broke down mid performance and ruined it. Everyone was aware of it and just stayed silent as she walked out of the room.

Mr.Charisma Will.I.am then decides to break the silence by stating the obvious, 'she messed that up.....'

Haha that gets me everytime.

 

[loka]

this is my theory :

MJ really sung or worked on the cascio tracks but they were never finsihed

at the very best they had something like this :

In the Back (verses even not sung)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jHgoSctWfM


They filled it with Jason Malachi (the cascio didn't even think this was weird)


This is what i think because I can feel the lyrism of MJ in BN and Monster (bridge)

i even noticed that both BN and Best of Joy (wich is authentic) contain a similar part


demonstration :


Best of Joy "1mn10" :

I am the one who someday you I will free
Wonder if it seems so hard to be


"Breaking News" :

Now is that strange that i fall in love
Who is the boogie man you thinkin’ of

-------------Musically talking---------------------------


best of joy: (1mn:10) :

si b , la b, sol fa , fa fa fa fa sol mib mib,
mib fa sol laaaab sib sol fa mib


breaking news :

sol sol la sib la sol fa re do re

--------------------------------------------------

 

[Kapital77]

Kapital77, please don't make up things that are simply not there. You're not being objective. Try it at least.
The thread you've created at MJHideOut is full of such claims. No wonder why MJHideOut is one of those forums where these theories are influencing people (whatever they might hear or not).

Of course is full of claims, the claims of more of 38 fan clubs, MJ Family, musics, producers, fans etc..

All of them said that MJ did not sung on those songs.

And it´s very easy to hear that MJ did not sung on those songs (I think it´s Jason Malachi), if you check the video/audio comparations that are included in this link:

http://fakemichael.com/

By the way, you tried to bring down my opinion in the Max forum asking me why i included Frank DiLeo in all this matter.... and look what i saw, you didn´t know the relationship between James Porte and Frank DiLeo.

INCREDIBLE !!!!

 

[loka]

to Pentum

the mix you made with Monster and "let me let go" is very significant

but would you, please, do the same with the verse of Heartbreaker ?

stacato voice also...

Just to compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3p6u-5Zug

 

[Korgnex]

.... and look what i saw, you didn´t know the relationship between James Porte and Frank DiLeo.

INCREDIBLE !!!!

I DO know. It makes no sense though to just speak of DiLeo as "paid off" as you claim he would be.
You can't reduce complicated things to a few famous persons that you've heard of. Way too simplified argumentation...


You can't even mention Frank DiLeo WITHOUT James Porte. Your argumentation is really hilarious, with all respect:

To make the fake songs, the only needed a home studio, the written lyrics by Porte/Frank in 2006, and many money for Jason Malachi, Roger Friedman and Frank DiLeo. :bighugs:

Money that they received from Sony.

It´s not difficult to understand.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I went through the posts quickly. I've noticed that there are two main things that were debated:

1) Legal matters such as contracts
2) Ignorant-conspiracy-theorists name calling

Can we immediately agree once for all that the fans who hear fake tracks are not conspiracy theorists? Thank you!

As far as legal matters are concerned, I disagree that it is not possible to pass fraudulous contracts for legal documents. There are plenty of examples.
-The most common example is people who fake (yes fake) sickness and go to the doctor and say they're sick and can't go to work. Even though the doctor doesn't see necessarily anything wrong, he can hardly, if at all, prove that the patient is not sick. So you get a legal document from the doctor that you are sick (physically or psychologically -e.g. depression, anxiety, etc-) and you are legally covered for your absence at school or at work! Many other fraudulous examples are done every day in sectors such as real estate agencies with the value of a real estate, etc.
-As far as SONY - Imposter (whoever he might be) contract is concerned, SONY or the Cascios might have signed a contract where they ask a singer to sing some songs and sign the clause of confidentiality including the right to the intellectual property to those songs washing off the hands of all the responsibility of the imposter on the songs. As a result, SONY/Cascio do whatever they want with the songs and the imposter even if he decides to go to the court why would he? Because even if the imposter goes to the court and sue SONY/Cascios for misuse of his intellectual property or his songs it would cost him a lot of money first to prove it is him (because he probably doesn't posses the hard disk) and second to win nothing at all. More elaborated and trickier contracts are perfectly possible where all you can say is "check mate"!

 

[Korgnex]

@BUMPER SNIPPET: What you've just said about legal things is too much simplified. Registering songs isn't that easy at all.

Why do you think forensic experts were needed? They have verified MJ's vocals.


Kapital probably would come up with the claim "they have been 'paid off' " again. Or "their names haven't been revealed to the general public" and would ignore that this is business.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

@BUMPER SNIPPET: What you've just said about legal things is too much simplified. Registering songs isn't that easy at all.

Why do you think forensic experts were needed? They have verified MJ's vocals.


Kapital probably would come up with the claim "they have been 'paid off' " again. Or "their names haven't been revealed to the general public" and would ignore that this is business.

Yes why? If it is Michael singing, why would you need anyone to confirm it is Michael singing?

Let's say that they did it for the routine sake. I still cannot believe the results simply because the forensic experts compared the vocals of the Cascio tracks to Michael's voice. Indeed there are similarities.

But the very same forensic experts NEVER compared the Cascio tracks to Jason Malachi's voice. And I would be curious to see their report on that! Especially the comparison of teh vocals between "MONSTER" and "LET ME LET GO".

So indeed science can help us, but let's not forget that science is observation! So far, to my knowledge, the forensic experts did neither observe nor compare Jason's vocals with any of the Cascio tracks at all.

 

[Pentum]

to Pentum

the mix you made with Monster and "let me let go" is very significant

but would you, please, do the same with the verse of Heartbreaker ?

stacato voice also...

Just to compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3p6u-5Zug

"Morphios" made them.

I won't be making any more videos and audios. I'm out of this whole Cascio tracks case. :holiday:

 

[loka]

"Morphios" made them.

I won't be making any more videos and audios. I'm out of this whole Cascio tracks case. :holiday:

staccato voice from "i can't let her get away" or "tabloid junkie" would be nice to compare with

Who is Morphios...i searched him and didn't find any morphios on the forum

 

[Kapital77]

Kapital probably would come up with the claim "they have been 'paid off' " again. Or "their names haven't been revealed to the general public" and would ignore that this is business.

You can call me or say whatever you want....

BUT THIS IS THE REALITY:

http://www.goear.com/listen/54dcdb1/malachivsbreakingnews-

Sorry that you hear Michael Jackson on those songs..... specially with your conections with Sony Music.

 

[kopwatcher]

You can call me or say whatever you want....

BUT THIS IS THE REALITY:

http://www.goear.com/listen/54dcdb1/malachivsbreakingnews-

Sorry that you hear Michael Jackson on those songs..... specially with your conections with Sony Music.

I've always been unsure whether BN is JM. I've never been as sure as I have with Monster. That audio comparison has pretty much confirmed it for me.

 

[Kapital77]

I've always been unsure whether BN is JM. I've never been as sure as I have with Monster. That audio comparison has pretty much confirmed it for me.

Good to know that my audio comparation help one member to know the reality of the album "Michael".

:angel:

 

[arnspecs]

You can call me or say whatever you want....

BUT THIS IS THE REALITY:

http://www.goear.com/listen/54dcdb1/malachivsbreakingnews-

Sorry that you hear Michael Jackson on those songs..... specially with your conections with Sony Music.

Yes .. lets have these 'forensic experts' listen to that. I'm sure if they were presented with that they would have agreed that is Jason, not Michael. The fact they probably weren't given these examples of Jason aswell means their basically saying 'yes it sounds to us like Michael Jackson'. This would have thrown a massive spanner in the works. I think Sony know they were duped now. But ... there;s no way they can ever admit it because they'd lose a MASSIVE amount of money with returns and possible lawsuits.

 

[loka]

Good to know that my audio comparation help one member to know the reality of the album "Michael".

:angel:

and what about an other possibility

both mj and malachi (filling the blanks) are singing these songs.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Our voice change even during the day. There is a difference between when you wake up in the morning and the evening. So if you compare your own voice it wouldn't match 100%.

The same probably happened to the comparison of Cascio tracks with Michael songs where the voice matched maybe at a percentage that is reasonable to assume that it is Michael. But if they had compared it to Jason's voice they would have most probably discovered that his voice matches with even a higher percentage than Michael's with the Cascio's songs.

 

[Korgnex]

The forensic experts had tracks by some of the most famous impersonators to listen to. This included Jason. Some people at Sony were well aware about Jason. The "Mamacita" discussion didn't go unnoticed. It was all over youTube and Sony was notified about the whole situation. This was 3.5 years ago, people.




You're assuming things that are untrue. The forensic experts didn't just listen to previous material of Michael, they listened to impersonators as well.