Jason Malachi -"It was me, I sang the songs"

[all4loveandbelieve]

I was looking in yahoo under Jason Malachi and it brought me to theses song of Michael Jackson unreleased song - "FALL AGAIN" I don't know if this was already posted. This is a beautiful song, with  tears in my eyes.
 another song was unreleased: Michael Jackson - I Have this dream (Unreleased) This is a weird song, Mj hardly sings.This one is :Michael Jackson Unreleased Song - Title Unknown
Title unknown I have a hard time believing it is Michael. Maybe the wooohoo. what do you guys think? It is strange from Jason Malachi all these songs comes along, in youtube. I hope these songs were not posted. Maybe they were and i don't remember.  :lol:  If they were sorry. I am just trying to understand why from Jason Malachi these songs appears in youtube.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[anewfan]

@all4loveandbelieve...thank you for sharing those videos. I really liked the I Have This Dream song. I thought it was so pretty. It sounds like it might be an instrumental version with only the back-up singing parts to a song.

[curls]

Thanks for posting Fall Again - beautiful!

[nefari]

I'd laugh my arse off if it was Michael posing as Jason, saying HE sang all of those listed songs :lol:
Of course it's all Michael singing. I've never doubted it from day one since I first gave them a listen.

[all4loveandbelieve]

I'd laugh my arse off if it was Michael posing as Jason, saying HE sang all of those listed songs :lol:
Of course it's all Michael singing. I've never doubted it from day one since I first gave them a listen.

Nefari, I do not put anything pass Michael anymore. Anything is possible. Maybe that is a clue to through us off, or to tell us that Michael can do anything he wants. I am just so confused. The ironic thing is I went to yahoo to check information on Jason Malachi. It says a song on youtube and all of a sudden all the unreleased songs came along. Maybe i should go check for more. Blessings.

[bec]

If there was ever a trashy tabloid that wrote 98% fictious BS on a daily basis it's TMZ and they are holding that crown high-nothing to be proud of but we'll leave Harvey to it because he is either incredibly stupid or on the massive payroll of hoaxland.
Personally I think he wishes he had been an actor and this is payback for some unfulfilled life he never got to live on the big screen.lol.

Random thoughts.

I know you meant Harvey but I think this is and has been going on with MJ for awhile now and we missed it completely. Listening to the lyrics on Michael, seems he has a bone to pick with Hollywood. Surely referencing how all his celebrity A list friends abandoned him in droves after the 93 allegations went public, but after discovering MJs passion for film... I think he got told no many times.

Which brings me to the next thought.

Is it fair to think of "Michael Jackson" as a sort of character? Like Bozo the Clown, who was played by 3 or 4 men over a 25 year period until the show was finally canceled. No one was informed that the original man who invented Bozo was no longer inside the costume and wearing the face paint, the TV company just started using a new guy. No one really cared much anyway, it was the character of Bozo that everyone loved, not the man inside the suit. Turned out, Bozo could be played by any good actor it seemed and the people were just as entertained.

So. Is it possible that Michael Jackson turned into a character rather then a personality? Is it possible that the multiple faces of Michael Jackson we have come to know and accept over the decades is the result of... employee turnover?

But since we see multiple faces at the same time or era, simultaneously appearing as Michael Jackson, perhaps it is a situation like I described with Bozo, but more similar to how child actors have doubles or a twin; 2 children playing one role, creating the illusion of one individual person during the performance.

So did Michael Jackson become a character over time? And if so, is this the real reason MJ was never able to get anywhere with his desire to do film? MJ could never appear in a movie on screen because that would get complicated. Does he appear as Michael Jackson in costume or... not? If he doesn't appear in costume how is that explained? How is he billed? It's Michael Jackson. He's not what you call... a regular person. There's a certain image, an expectation. It's carefully controlled. That doesn't necessarily work in conventional film.

So does he do the film thing as MJ or as... Mike Jack. Who is he? What is he? Does he really exist or is he an invention of the Music industry? Is he a person who has a life and friends and a family, or is the entire Michael Jackson persona fabricated by a PR department of MJJ?

Which are some deep thoughts but not really the point (or is it).

A point that occurred to me with this whole JM/MJ thing is this: it doesn't really matter who the living, breathing human behind the mic is, it only matters what you think of the song. If no one can tell if a voice is a 20-sumthin amateur white dude or the KING of POP then what does that say about the Music Biz? And what does that say about being Celebrity? And what does that say about us as consumers of music?

I'm not sure all the lessons learned on this one but I realized in regards to the last question posed... we are buying an IMAGE when we buy music, an IMAGE created by the music business offered up as an ILLUSION to the public. Anyone could be behind that mic spitting that lyric and do you care? If you do care, WHY? Do you like the song? That's all that should matter I suppose.

[Grace]

Were people really mad when Milli Vanilli was unveiled?
Not that I remember.

A public person is a brand and per se gets a public perception being shaped by a PR team.

Take a candy brand for comparison of the principles.
"Look", "feel", "colour", "taste", "percentage of sugar and chocolate", "packaging", "appearances" on shelf or display, promotions, "pricing" - all of that is delicate matter and defines a good candy brand. When brands are getting sold, negociations are about how much value the brand image and customer perception are expressing.

A brand name's value consists of pure air and its image. The image is being measured in figures of past sales, turnover, cost AND potential for future (gathered by opinion polls, customer perception profiles, customer market analysis and estimates and predictions of how many customers will buy this or that variant). It is a "best guess" value consisting of much hot air - but alike financial speculations: no risk - no money.
Customer market analysis will analysis of customer clusters (age, sex, income, synergies, expectations etc.) and product variants to fit into those clusters.
Analysis will e.g. stress "one-by-one" comparisons in lab tests (tastes better, would buy) and details such as "TV ad should feature a darkhaired woman in this country and a blond in this country as the messenger to get the highest attention - the fact of culturally different affectations is costing marketing departments billions for global campaigns because they have to adapt to regional differences even if they don't like this.

Comparing a globally marketed candy to a globally marketed music brand is of course only giving a first feeling of what is being done behind the curtains.

We noticed the "made-up" stories, "manipulated" pictures, false statements, PR-channels used. This goes down to the individual artist (make-up, figure, clothing, "style").
To be added are the human beings, the hard work of artists and actors (like athletes), how much they are sacrificing of their personal life for their public image life (not eating out for the next photoshooting would unveil a lbs too much on the bones). It is a golden cage and many artists suffer from being a brand and having to comply to marketing and PR strategies.

A split between image and voice, backstage and frontguy may ease up life for all persons involved since they bear only half of the burden. Just as an idea.
Another thought is "testing the waters", joy of experimenting with new features before bringing them on stage officially (usually done as "blind" tests for a candy), joy of not having to prove anything when being undercover.
There come a lot of positive vibes executing projects not under a brand's name.
Main aspect is freedom.

[nefari]

I for one was crushed when the Milli Vanilli thing came out. UGH I wanted those voices attached to those men we saw in the videos and I wanted nothing less, just as I expect from Michael. I do not care if Michael wore make up or even masks for that matter, and I certainly do not care about any skin disorders he has or personal problems and this would not sway me, but I would like to know that at least what we got was the Michael that grew from that adorable little boy with the J-5 into a grown man. That is who I want. But I do NOT want some random dude or stand in for Michael Jackson, or to find out the wool has been pulled over my eyes for years and it's not even a member of the Jackson family behind the voice and the looks. If I found out there was some white dude or imposter all of these years I'd probably burn every MJ item I have and end up on drugs myself. That thought scares me to death.

[bec]

If I found out there was some white dude or imposter all of these years I'd probably burn every MJ item I have and end up on drugs myself. That thought scares me to death.

Please don't say that nefari. Please don't hinge your health on this. There's many possible sides to many possible stories that might be the outcome of this hoax.

In regards to MJ music, if it's music and a message and an image and a brand that the original Michael Jackson always believed in giving and providing for his fans, and wanted to continue to offer them/us, possibly just delivered through a message carrier, and we all enjoyed it being none the wiser, isn't that all that counts? Why must it have been the actual original man Michael Jackson himself that stands up there and does the show?

Surely there would be a reason behind it. I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt considering the situation and the personality we are dealing with. I have reason to believe we should be prepared for the very real possibility that the man we all think we knew for so long has been hiding a very big secret for a very long time.

[all4loveandbelieve]

If I found out there was some white dude or imposter all of these years I'd probably burn every MJ item I have and end up on drugs myself. That thought scares me to death.

Please don't say that nefari. Please don't hinge your health on this. There's many possible sides to many possible stories that might be the outcome of this hoax.

In regards to MJ music, if it's music and a message and an image and a brand that the original Michael Jackson always believed in giving and providing for his fans, and wanted to continue to offer them/us, possibly just delivered through a message carrier, and we all enjoyed it being none the wiser, isn't that all that counts? Why must it have been the actual original man Michael Jackson himself that stands up there and does the show?

Surely there would be a reason behind it. I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt considering the situation and the personality we are dealing with. I have reason to believe we should be prepared for the very real possibility that the man we all think we knew for so long has been hiding a very big secret for a very long time.

@Nefari, Bec is right, do not ruin your life for this. I think what Michael wanted to do is to continue his work maybe through someone else so we can still listen to his lyrics. He wrote so many new songs, and as we can see some of them have clues, information, to his hoax.

@bec you said that he may be hiding a big secret for a very long time. What do you think it is? Besides his hoax. I am intrigued .

[~Souza~]

Hey bec, I get what you say and I agree but to a certain extend because I don't think it went that far. The person exsists, the image exists, but they are seperate people. I think he created the image in the late 80's/early 90's for the reason of the hoax. That is when he started to wear the muchos make-up and the wigs occasionally. I think the pupose for that was to be able to used doubles when they were necessary. When he was ill, as decoys for safety reasons or whatever reason he might have had. I think he did create the image, but was the one 'behind the mask' most of the time. He created an illusion around himself that made it easier for him to 'die' and to do other things as himself, because I think he did many other things besides being the King of Pop. The make-up, the wigs, strange behaviour at times seem to be the illusion he created to be able to do what he had to do. But the music is his and I think a lot of the unreleased stuff allegedly from JM is as well. This is to see what or who the fans really love. Is it Michael Jackson the image, or is it Michael Jackson the man? If they see or hear anything that doesn't fit the image, will they embrace it, or will they resent it? Will they accept that there was a man behind the mask, or will they find it unacceptable? Who are the exactly idolizing? That is my opinion, but I could be off. The king of Pop is dead, Michael lives, but if all they loved was the King of Pop, then for them he is in fact dead because I don't see we will see the image return, we will see the man we never knew, all masks taken off and all cards on the table.

[nefari]

I love Michael the image and the man together. But it has to be J-5 Michael for me or I'm done....unless it was his twin all along or Wylie Draper.  For them I could go with it. All I'm saying is I refuse to accept some ole nasty white man ever posing as the real Michael no matter what his message, that would kill it all for me. Impersonators are cool but only if they are known as just that. I could accept Michael Jackson being dead rather than to find out I had not seen the real deal all these years. You just don't play with people's hearts that way. It's cruel and wrong. And it would prove the man who spoke about truth and love for so long was nothing but a cold liar.

[Datroot]

Hey bec, I get what you say and I agree but to a certain extend because I don't think it went that far. The person exsists, the image exists, but they are seperate people. I think he created the image in the late 80's/early 90's for the reason of the hoax. That is when he started to wear the muchos make-up and the wigs occasionally. I think the pupose for that was to be able to used doubles when they were necessary. When he was ill, as decoys for safety reasons or whatever reason he might have had. I think he did create the image, but was the one 'behind the mask' most of the time. He created an illusion around himself that made it easier for him to 'die' and to do other things as himself, because I think he did many other things besides being the King of Pop. The make-up, the wigs, strange behaviour at times seem to be the illusion he created to be able to do what he had to do. But the music is his and I think a lot of the unreleased stuff allegedly from JM is as well. This is to see what or who the fans really love. Is it Michael Jackson the image, or is it Michael Jackson the man? If they see or hear anything that doesn't fit the image, will they embrace it, or will they resent it? Will they accept that there was a man behind the mask, or will they find it unacceptable? Who are the exactly idolizing? That is my opinion, but I could be off. The king of Pop is dead, Michael lives, but if all they loved was the King of Pop, then for them he is in fact dead because I don't see we will see the image return, we will see the man we never knew, all masks taken off and all cards on the table.

I really hope you are right.  For me, MJ has three distinctive looks - One at the 02, and two in the Batshit video.  I have seen the two in the Batshit video on numerous occasions but the one at the 02 I have only seen on that particular visit to the UK.

[Sinderella]

I honestly don't think Michael Jackson was replaced by other people over the years.
He is a person,he lived through all those things,tours,videos,interviews,marriages,kids,allegations,the trial and so on...all one person.Everyone is entitled to their opinions,I just think it's kind of insulting to him to think of him as someone who could easily be replaced by another similar looking person.
There is only one Michael Jackson.

I'll agree that the king of pop is dead,but that is the image...the persona,not the man.
"film,I love film,I want to innovate it and i'm having a lot of fun"
Hollywood has given him a rough time over the years,not just in the media but his 'friends' there.
As soon as I heard the full thing I was like...this album is angry at tinsel town,for reals,monster says it all.
I also think that people in Hollywood,in the film industry are very intimidated by Michael,now he is an amazing human being,his charity work,he's sweet and quiet=all true but he is also a mean business man,everything he touches literally turns to gold.
Can you imagine MJJ productions making full length silver screen movies(I don't mean TII)I mean,proper feature films,Thriller being one of them,they would break records,win awards,he'd be on top of his game because that is what he lives for,and he is successful at everything he puts his hand to.
Michael was told 'no' to keep him from being competition.He would have the best actors,the best crew,stages,anything he wanted and it would always be a masterpiece.The Hollywood elite who make these films-Brett Ratner,Steven Speilberg,imo all refused to be part of his movie dream because they would be pushed aside.No one would care who it was written by all that would be talked about is OMG MICHAEL JACKSON'S NEW MOVIE.
He would rule the industry.
People knew he could do it the second Thriller the mini movie was released,even before that.
If I was a director I wouldn't want my film coming out the same time as a MJ film,no way in hell.
(and just so you know I'm talking in past tense because this has been going on for years,all the fall outs,and being turned away from the film industry-it isn't a recent thing.There is no insinuating he is dead or gone)

@Nefari,I honestly wouldn't worry =]

and I am not even getting into the 02 MJ.haha

[~Souza~]

I honestly don't think Michael Jackson was replaced by other people over the years.
He is a person,he lived through all those things,tours,videos,interviews,marriages,kids,allegations,the trial and so on...all one person.Everyone is entitled to their opinions,I just think it's kind of insulting to him to think of him as someone who could easily be replaced by another similar looking person.
There is only one Michael Jackson.

I'll agree that the king of pop is dead,but that is the image...the persona,not the man.
"film,I love film,I want to innovate it and i'm having a lot of fun"
Hollywood has given him a rough time over the years,not just in the media but his 'friends' there.
As soon as I heard the full thing I was like...this album is angry at tinsel town,for reals,monster says it all.
I also think that people in Hollywood,in the film industry are very intimidated by Michael,now he is an amazing human being,his charity work,he's sweet and quiet=all true but he is also a mean business man,everything he touches literally turns to gold.
Can you imagine MJJ productions making full length silver screen movies(I don't mean TII)I mean,proper feature films,Thriller being one of them,they would break records,win awards,he'd be on top of his game because that is what he lives for,and he is successful at everything he puts his hand to.
Michael was told 'no' to keep him from being competition.He would have the best actors,the best crew,stages,anything he wanted and it would always be a masterpiece.The Hollywood elite who make these films-Brett Ratner,Steven Speilberg,imo all refused to be part of his movie dream because they would be pushed aside.No one would care who it was written by all that would be talked about is OMG MICHAEL JACKSON'S NEW MOVIE.
He would rule the industry.
People knew he could do it the second Thriller the mini movie was released,even before that.
If I was a director I wouldn't want my film coming out the same time as a MJ film,no way in hell.
(and just so you know I'm talking in past tense because this has been going on for years,all the fall outs,and being turned away from the film industry-it isn't a recent thing.There is no insinuating he is dead or gone)

@Nefari,I honestly wouldn't worry =]

and I am not even getting into the 02 MJ.haha

I agree, well put and I think that is EXACTLY the case. He was a threat to Hollywood. That is why I think he created the image of The King of Pop and all around it. I don't think most people would realize what kind of business man he is. Soft spoken and shy Michael would never do... blablabla. Well I think many are in for a surprise.

I AM curious about your take on O2 dude though :lol: