Latest from Taryll Jackson re: Weitzman's statement and songs on album... UPDATED | The Official Michael Jackson Site

Latest from Taryll Jackson re: Weitzman's statement and songs on album... UPDATED

Taryll Jackson

On Friday 12th November 2010, @Taryll said:

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'm waiting on a phone call or the statement to be posted on an official site (such as before I respond.


Taryll Jackson

On Saturday 13th November 2010, @Taryll said:

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. Saying that, I don't want to go into further details and take away from the attention "Hold My Hand" truly deserves. You will hear my story because this is way too important for my Uncle's legacy. The truth will prevail.

Taryll Jackson

On Saturday 13th November 2010, @Taryll said:

Out of the 10 songs listed only 7 of them are Michael Jackson. Someone just asked me," is 'Keep Your Head Up' real or are we being lied to again? Sorry, but you won't like my answer…. Let's enjoy Hold My Hand.

Jackie Jackson,

On Tuesday 9th November at 10:51 AM via TweetDeck

My friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album. Unfortunately, our concerns were not taken seriously

Comments (71)

McLamb , thanks for the video
This thing of saying Michael distanced himself is not even close to the way it is presented , it's not like his brothers were bad to him or anything , I get it

mcdixon , well said

I like Taryll , he loves his uncle , keep saying it , there are million of ears waiting to listen

If what Taryl said is true about the Cascio's not showing him any of the outtakes or unused recordings of these questionable songs than that seems very incriminating on their part and gives creedence to all the controversy. Although I don't think Michael would like all this controversy about the validity of his voice singing on these tracks. There would be no question about what he would record and present to his fans, no question. There never has been and there never would be. Michael may have enjoyed being the topic of conversation or keeping his name in the papers generating a lot of attention but he did not keep his fans guessing about his music or him in his music.


*just wanted to support him for doing an excellent job, please keep on fighting and loving your uncle*

Hi julia why down there Smiling Good point about not bashing the Jackson's.
If you listen to some interviews given by the Jackson family they openly admit that MJ distanced himself from them. Even Janet, the one he was closest to, said she hadn't seen or talked to him in a few months when he passed. Some of them attribute this to his entourage who they think was keeping him from them but that is all pure speculation. I believe them to an extent but I also feel like if MJ reallly wanted to reach out to them he could have, it doesn't take much to make a phone call. And this distancing had been going on for years and years too. Back in the early '90's, around the time MJ released Dangerous, his brother Jermaine released "word to the badd" as an attack on MJ for not retuning his phone calls. This is just one example. Here's the interview it's pretty interesting too.

and this was before all of the rumored drug use and other drama some attribute the distancing to so it must have been for other reasons.

I for one have never "bashed" the Jacksons. I loooove them ♥ They were MJ's family and he loved them too. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that some of them do questionable things sometimes. And historically they have never been privy to important MJ info. This doesn't mean that they're opinions and observations are invalid but they can't be taken as fact just b/c they're family. They're not bad ppl I just think they should be a little more conscious of what they say and do in the public eye b/c it can have negative consequences. And if they're going to make bold statements they need to be prepared to back them up with cold, hard facts or they need to say that they're just stating their opinion first so ppl don't get mistaken and quote them like they're facts. That's just how i feel....

"Foresight must be used & reasoning MJ stayed away from his family & Sony but ppl decide to just brush tht under the rug becuz Sony is the do exactly wht every record company does it just so happens MJ was signed to tht one trust ne it would hve been the same at Capitol, Atlantic wherever those companies dnt play whn it comes to their money."
Bravo!! If anything a company cares about its $$$$. Bottom line: Using fake MJ tracks would cause way more trouble than it's worth in this case. MJ's issues with Sony were in the past, they're not out to ruin his legacy like some think b/c that would cost them $$$. I'm not saying they're perfect little angels but they're not all in the wrong here either so the whole "fight the power" mentality some ppl have against Sony is not necessary in this case.

mjthinker: Thank you for your accurate and insightful input as well. I just find it hard to believe that all of a sudden after his uncle's death tarryl is now at the forefront of MJ's creative and business team. cmon now. if he asked me for the tapes i would've denied him access for the simple fact that taryll is a family member, not a business partner, therefore not privy to that kind of material.
"And every single 'fact' we receive is coming through the warped perceptions of someone personally involved."
my point exactly. who's reality is "fact"?? and better yet who's more qualified to make that distinction?? it's all really a matter of opinion.

I just want to understand more clearly what people mean by saying Michael distanced himself from his family .

Is there a link for this , did he stop talking to them , or what ? can anyone provide clarity for this

In 2005 , his family was there , when people turned their backs on him , which is what families are for .
Randy found Thomas Mesereau for him - he was Randy's friend , I heard Randy could beat his wife , I don't have any proof it , and that he and Jermaine shared a wife .

Jermaine contributed to his stay in Bahrain , I don't like Tohme though Sad , I heard he is in arrears with chilld support , which I don't have any proof ,and he lost his licence because of it .

When Taj talked about directing movies with his uncle , was it happening or was it going to happen , I can't remember what he said

Whatever people may say , when Michael was boycotting Sony , they said he was a falling star , when his nephews 3T who I like very much are talking , it's because they are jealous , they are left out in the will , It's their uncle's name involved here , if it's not them , who else will do it for him , or can it be the fans who are fighting over him .

I'm not bothered by the Cascio tracks , some of the tracks are questionable , the mixing and all sorts of things that they did , but the voice sounds like Michael , what I care about is bashing his family in favor of the opposing side , with no proof of anything . I'm not against discussion , they are not perfect like anybody else , Michael was eccentric at times

@Vanette, you make some valid points (especially about researching and not just bashing).
but my problem is this: what you quote from Tarryl about the meeting is once again just his subjective perception. Teddy riley claims that they were just 'humoring' Tarryl, letting him rant or whatever, because they could see he was emotional and unreachable.
Also, the fact that there are no original tapes etc. well once again, THAT 'fact' also comes from Tarryl. But did anyone think that maybe they just TOLD Tarryl there are no tapes or masters, because they didn't want him involved? If I had MJ masters in my hands, or on my hard drive, no way would I give them up to anyone! i wouldn't even admit i had them, for fear of sabotage.
So maybe Cascio just said that since Tarryl has no authority to hear them, but they didn't want to offend him with an outright rejection.
I am not saying this viewpoint is correct. Just saying that the 'truth' is so elusive. And every single 'fact' we receive is coming through the warped perceptions of someone personally involved.

We will probably never know the complete truth. I spent hours and hours searching and researching, and still can't find any absolutely objective proofs of anything, either way.

I'm W/ McLamb on this one. His family aren't exactly known for their honesty some go as far as they are famehoing but tht's a whole different matter. It's no secret he kept his distance from most of them and they are upset they arent in control of their cash cow. But seriously how is the nephew privy to all this info I would love to know...How old is he all i seee is a buch he said he said coulda, shoulda, woulda but didnt...seriously, i honestly dont think sony would be stupid enough to mess up their money by making fake tracks if you dont think they believe inMichael thn believe they believe in money & making fake tracks would just lead to unnecessary trouble...& legal woes which would then transfer to the other albums which would flop if ppl believed tracks were fake. Foresight must be used & reasoning MJ stayed away from his family & Sony but ppl decide to just brush tht under the rug becuz Sony is the do exactly wht every record company does it just so happens MJ was signed to tht one trust ne it would hve been the same at Capitol, Atlantic wherever those companies dnt play whn it comes to their money. Stop taking up fire range & just look at it seriously the way some of u go on i swear it's MJ doing all this typing &it's already been said his problem was w/ Mottola & tht got sorted so....wht exactly are you ppl going on about...Until I see some voice experts on the family's side saying no no no...i'll take wht they say w/ a grain of salt neither side is known for honesty but i'll tell Sony has Too Much to Lose if there are fake tracks on there Sometimes the past clouds judgment which i find totally hilarious cuz it isnt our past it was Michael's but some uf dont understand this & wht you are taking as fact still seems like another's opinion.

Vanette , I agree with you , thanks for the info

From what I observed , anything against Jackson , fact or not , people jump into conclusion to discredit them . I'm not saying all people , that's what I observed . I don't want to contribute to something that Michael has gone through his life , by the grace of God , he was saved by DEATH . The Jacksons are humans , they may have had their faullts , who doesn't .
I have seen an article about Branca , not so many people are making comments , he can do what he want , as long as he has arranged for Cirque De Soul , "Michael" the album , This is it which has made a lot of money , the estate is in debt , which some of his inner circle has contributed , so he is doing a good .
I think even Blanket can manage his father's estate as it is , his father is like coca cola , he doesn't need any introduction .
Michael has fought Sony while he owned 50% Sony 's music publishing , which Branca has taken the 5% from it . What did he gain by boycotting the record label he was part of , he wanted things to be done in a right way .

Who knows what his nephews know befor jumping into conclusion ?

Well said Vanette.
However, as far as knowing the specific aspects of this dispute none of know for sure what's going on because of the simple fact that we're not there behind-the-scenes to see for ourselves so to an extent our observations, as good as we may think they are, are not all that accurate.
I must also state that the difference between complete and incomplete information about the family's statements is near impossible to decipher in this situation because once again, we're not the family so all we can do is take what little info we get and attempt to make sense of it, when in reality it may or may not be credible info at all. None of us can say for sure one way or the other, b/c we just don't know.
Ultimately we can really only go off of what we hear from third party sources and form our observations from that. Which in this case has lead me to feel the way I do about the situation, which is very discouraged by all the negativity surrounding the album release.
There's two sides to every story; and then there's the truth. You spoke of being wary of misinformation which I agree is important and we must also keep in mind that all parties involved are capable of spreading bad information, including the family and the estate and the record label, no one is exempt here in my eyes.
We as fans will be hard-pressed to find the truth but there's no harm in trying. And IMHO there's no harm in having an opinion either whether it be based on observation or pure emotion. After all, we're all only human here.
With all that said my opinion for the time being is still that with no viable proof of any fake tracks, i'll continue to support the album and believe that all of the tracks are MJ's.

I reported the significant observations made by Taryll of what occurred at the meeting,,
and the report of actions taken by Jackie Jackson and John McClain,
which were never mentioned here, even though they are significant to the discussion i.e. that there may be reasonable objections being made by the family. I only see discussions of opinions. @MCLamb09 It is your own opinion that I am taking these as fact.

There is a difference between someone giving their observations and only expressing their personal feelings. People are passing judgment without knowing the specific aspects of the dispute. It is emotional reasoning when people only make opinions based on their feelings. People can have their own opinions but they should be wary of misinformation.

I express no opinion on the validity of the songs, only that people should do their research to get the complete information about the family's statements instead of reacting and passing judgment on them with incomplete information. And that they should be aware of the significant incentives to discredit them.

@Vanette- I truly value and appreciate you're research and reasoning concerning this topic. And yes some of what the Jackson's and McClain have said is compelling, but I must note that you based most of your opinion off of what his family says on their twitter(which is fine if that's what you choose to believe) but you must know that just because it's said on twitter doesn't make it fact. People can get on twitter and say literally anything they want, that doesn't necessarily make it fact.
I'm not saying they are flat out lying but they are just ppl too it's highly possible that they're just as confused or mistaken as everyone is.
Please don't dismiss differing opinions as "emotional reasoning" because as i'm sure you're well aware of the topic of MJ is an emotional one for all his fans, not just some.
And I have definitely acknowledged the facts, which in my eyes are very minimal. If the tracks are fake, which they very well may be, prooooove it!! All I want is something, anything, other than someone's words that the tracks are fake and I will gladly concede my beliefs. Until then I stand by my comments on his family and record label. I know they mean well but in all historically they have been the last ppl to truly know what's going on, right before us fans.
So like I stated before "*kanye shrugs* who knows what the real deal is behind all of this bs?? That's just how i've come to see things lately. I personally CANNOT wait til the album drops!! I just wanna chill and listen to some MJ" Smiling

Taryll made some specific observations & objections as a witness at the meeting in the studio (see my post below) and as a witness to MJ's previous work habits. Jackie Jackson and co-executor John McClain are also on side with Jackie Jackson reporting "My friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album."

There are a people here expressing their personal feelings here without acknowledging the facts, but as with many things concerning MJ or the media in general, I hope many MJ fans have learned the importance of doing their own research and look at actual statements. and the details. There is a lot of incentive to spread misinformation and make blanket statements about the family. Emotional reasoning does little do advance the truth but is a valuable tool to retaliate against those who challenge those in power, as we may have learned.

It is not only about deception in the album, but Taryll as an eyewitness, also disputes the account of the meeting in the Estate's letter, including the outcome

Again, all the usual evidence of the MJ's work process on the songs is reported missing/destroyed.
The authenticity of the songs is not just based on the authenticity of the vocals, but how the song was put together.

LOL @frednichols. exactly. where's the body double??
MJ would've loved all this controversy but at the end of the day i think there's a valid reason behind why he rarely did business with his close family. I for one have a very very hard time believing that MJ's nephew is one of the ppl who is privy to all the latest updates concerning MJ's business empire. I just don't believe it.
Of course his fam means well and I'm all for them supporting him and his legacy but I've come to seriously question their motives and wonder why MJ's record label would risk all the complications and potential lawsuits by releasing material that wasn't genuine MJ??
Say what you want about his label, but they're not ALL(maybe a lot of them but not all) a bunch of complete idiots, they wouldn't risk it.
*kanye shrugs* who knows what the real deal is behind all of this bs?? That's just how i've come to see things lately. I personally CANNOT wait til the album drops!! I just wanna chill and listen to some MJ.

Taryll also had a significant objection to being told that all the other takes were deleted, the original hard drive was destroyed and the computer the songs were created on was broken when he made inquiries about the validity of some songs ( It's not just the authenticity of the vocals, but how the songs were put together. The usual evidence of the MJ's work process on the songs is missing.

On Monday 8th November 2010, @Taryll said:

If you question the validity of a professional photo you can ask the photographer for more pictures from that photo shoot. If it is authentic the photographer will turn over different shots. Some with different poses, some even with eyes closed. I questioned the validity of the vocal's 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. I had the honor to learn and watch my uncle record my entire life and that is NOT how he worked. 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.

There is nothing wrong with Taryll. He is doing what he did when Michael was still here and what he promised to always do, which is to keep Michael's best interest up there at all time and fight for what is right. He is doing very well and he will keep going, no matter how many fans trash him for doing what is right.

OK Taryll Jackson
It's obvious to anyone with ears that Breaking News is not 100% MJ, but honestly Keep Your Head Up is him. All you have to do is listen. Seriously this family is on my last nerve. If you don’t think MJ is singing KYHU then get your ears checked kid. The conspiracy theorist Jacksons are at it again. They live by one rule in life & that is controversy creates cash. I’m getting so sick of this. Hell I still have yet to find the body double who stared in This Is It.

ethemer: Well thought and well said!

@michelle..ditto..well said!!

@MichelleMJ45: Well, said..., Bravo!!!!

@TeddyRiley1 So what the f*!k is going on with Taryll Jackson?
9 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply
in reply to @helencg1 ↑
@TeddyRiley1 TEDDY RILEY
@helencg1 Nothing...5 minutes of fam.

I was reading someone mention when the will came out Randy said it was fake. When the movie came out Joe said there was body double. The album is about to come out and 3T (nephews) say the 3 songs are fake. It never stops. Michael didn't want his family running things and it seems depending on what comes up someone says something to put doubt on the whole thing. Then they say they don't want to distract attention from Hold My Hand and the album but that's what they are doing. They say they support the album and will buy it yet they claim 3 songs are fake. Why would you do that?

It's just so hard now that Michael is gone. It's never going to be the same. I don't want anyone playing games with us. The people running the estate, the family just anybody. It's too much and it makes me sad. I am already sad and this drama doesn't help.

Michael personally named three executors to manage his estate...

1) John Branca, the attorney who brokered some of the most lucrative business deals and was personally involved in the ATV/Sony catalog purchase and merger.
2) John McClain, music executive, to handle the creative decisions involving his music.
3) Barry Siegel, Michael's former accountant, to manage the finances of the estate. Siegel declined to serve

Howard Weitzman, Michael's former attorney, was NOT named by Michael in the will but was brought in after his death to represent the two special administrators of the estate, Branca and McClain. It should be noted that Weitzman was among those mismanaging Michael's legal affairs during the Chandler extortion fiasco.

John McClain, the co-executor personally chosen by Michael for his music/creative expertise, is among those trying to get the 3 Cascio songs pulled from the album. People from both sides of this issue have contended that McClain is calling those songs fake. Teddy Riley is arguing that the reason that McClain is disputing the authenticity of the Cascio songs is because Sony chose Riley's final version of the songs. Jackie Jackson has said that he and McClain have been trying remove those tracks from the final album.

From Jackie Jackson, 10:51 AM Nov 9th via TweetDeck

<em>My friend John McClain (co-executor) and I have insisted for many weeks to have certain tracks removed from Michael's new album. Unfortunately, our concerns were not taken seriously</em>


So, if you're going to make the argument that we abide by the decision of the executors, then why ignore the concerns and efforts of the co-executor that was hand-picked by Michael to handle the creative decisions?

Exactly Michael's wishes are being carried out and that's all that matters. Michael wanted executors of the estate to be outside the family and he obviously did that for a reason.

michelleMJ45: Thanks!
I share your thoughts.

I wouldn't judge the Jacksons , everything is speculation

The Jacksons have something they are doing in their lives , he was not their welfare , rumours , rumours . We knew that Katherine and Joe were separated , to our surprise , they said they were not.

We may say he earned more than them , he had Neverland to look after , maybe he felt obliged to maintain Hayvenhurst as his mother was living there .

I don't think a man will feel proud being maintained by another man . I n my opinion , that house is big for Katherine to live on her own , they all grew up there . I don't think they feel is a problem living there

With regard to performing with his brothers , I don't know anything , I would speculate that mothers like to see their children working together . Maybe they thought Michael was getting away from them , as he was mostly surrounded by people who didn't have his best interests at heart , they wanted to bring him back to the family , I don't think money was an issue , he was not their welfare , he was their lead singer . I may say he was mum and dad's welfare

If Taryll Jackson and some members of the family are all so sure its not him, then instead of twittering about it ---they should be looking for a lawyer and filing a lawsuit, I will take them seriously if they start showing some gumption and do something about it. Instead we get nothing but hearsay--let them put their money where their mouth is by hiring a top notch lawyer to investigate.

I have nothing against the Jacksons--they are Michaels family, but *some* of them dont have the best judgement when it comes to business. As far as "coldhearted businessmen"--Michael didnt get where he was by being a sweet businessman, he had to be just a callous as the others when needed.

This is a bit off topic ...
He left his estate to someone else to run, that says enough. If I die tomorrow, everything I have is being left to my 14 yr old son, with my brother as executor. To me everything I have is belongs to my family when I pass, I have left specific items for nieces and nephews etc. (of course in no way can my tiny estate be compared to MJ!!). If I had a massive estate I would of course give the lions share to my son, but then make sure I leave some at least for my siblings . The question I ask myself is why is nothing left to his brothers or nephews or anybody? Only his kids and mom and charity. Not even a piece of jewelry is left specifically to anyone. Michael never thought he was going to die, yet he spoke of it often. In 2003 he promptly added Blanket to the will, so he was updating it accordingly. I have no doubt that he loved them, but what did they do to him to cause him to leave them completely out? IMHO I think they were a close knit family in the beginning, but somewhere along the way, they began to treat Michael like a money machine, they forgot to treat him like a family member. When he became super successful, they put him on guilt trips that he was obligated to perform with them. Visits to him were no longer to see how he was or shoot the breeze, it was always,'when are we going to perform together again?" I think Michael quietly resented it, which is why he pushed them away. They all needed to get professional counseling and air out their feelings about eachother, instead they kept everything a secret and it just got worse. Now they no longer have their dear son, brother, uncle and they are lost without him.

"All I care is to to put him where he belongs ... number "ONE" !!!!!!"

Oh yeah!!!

@megakingmj, Just for your information:
"A forensic musicologist is a person who identifies excerpts of music that may subtly or obviously consist of tunes from another piece. They determine if anything-the lyrics, tune, chords, or the pitch in a song sounds too similar to something that has already been copyrighted."

"In recent years, some musicologists have become involved in an emerging specialty called forensic musicology. These specialists, known as Forensic Musicologists, apply their expertise to legal matters. They work as consultants, offering their services to attorneys, recording companies, personal artistic managers, composers, artists, and others. In addition to their extensive background in music, these specialists are knowledgeable about intellectual property law and courtroom proceedings. They also understand the importance of being accurate, objective, and unbiased when performing forensic analysis.

These forensic experts primarily address legal issues regarding music copyright. Forensic Musicologists are well versed in the nuances of copyright law in which some uses of older music are protected while other uses are not. For example, using an older song’s melody in a new song that deliberately parodies the older song may be permissible. Copyright is a legal document that grants the owner of a piece of creative work, such as a musical composition, the exclusive rights to it. Music copyright owners have complete control over how their works may be used, who may make copies, who may perform them, and who may sell them, among other rights. (Music copyright owners are not necessarily the creators of musical works.) Plagiarizing musical pieces is a copyright infringement, or copyright violation, that can lead to lawsuits as well as criminal charges.

Forensic Musicologists are consulted when a new tune or song appears to use the melody or lyrics of an older musical work. Their job is to help clients establish if a musician deliberately copied another’s works and did not simply use an identical melody or lyric by coincidence. They analyze a musical piece in question and determine whether it meets the legal criteria of plagiarism.

Essentially, these forensic specialists analyze and compare two musical works and speculate on whether there is any similarity between the works. This involves careful and thorough analysis of each musical work. They study each aspect of the music such as lyrics, melody, and chord patterns. They examine segments of each work and compare only those segments that have relevance to the suspected issue of plagiarism. For example, four bars of each song may be identical or remarkably similar enough to arouse suspicion of one having been copied from the other.

Many of the plagiarism cases in recent years have involved the musical device known as sampling whereby a segment of one tune is incorporated into a new tune. Samples are directly extracted from a recorded piece and used in another. A musician may sample another musician’s work by licensing the use of the sample. The absence of that license is a violation of copyright law.

Forensic Musicologists are hired by diverse clients for different purposes. Attorneys retain these specialists to provide various litigation support services for civil or criminal cases."

Honestly, I have no doubt they asked for opinion of some forensic musicologists, even thogh their names were never revealed. Of course they did, they won't risk a lawsuit of plagiarism.
But what that has with voice authencity confirmation?

Right on MJ fan don't need any proof to say it not MJ sing all they need is to be told it's not him to start the fire going,
Very few fans I see calling for MJ family member who are saying it's not him to show there proof or take it to court.
Its very easy fail a lawsuit to stop the album if you think a fraud is happening no if no but.