MJ's Tenor Voice

Status
Not open for further replies.

MJJFan105

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
111
Points
0
Location
USA
How did MJ keep his high Tenor voice? What other male singer has a high Tenor voice like MJ? I read that Joe injected MJ with some hormones when he was 10 to 18 years old to keep his high Tenor voice? That also cause him to act childlike and hang around other boys. Is that true that MJ's voice is maintained high by hormone injection? Can a natural man's voice be that high Tenor? Either way if it's true or not, MJ is still a great singer and artist. You have to do what you have to do to be the BEST!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course you can naturally be a high tenor. Tenor isn't even the highest range for adult male singers.
 
The voice that Michael used in public wasn't even his real voice.
 
He had a diverse range but for some reason only used it at the end of his career...Seth Riggs encouraged him to make full use of his range.
 
What other male singer has a high Tenor voice like MJ? I read that Joe injected MJ with some hormones when he was 10 to 18 years old to keep his high Tenor voice?

Peter Cetera!

MJ told Martin Bashear the nose jobs he got were to make/keep his voice high.

I would have loved a Michael Jackson / Peter Cetera duet during the Thriller or Bad period, maybe even in the 70s. They would have looked and sounded so awesome together in the 80s, much more than the 70s!

It never happened. :(


 
Last edited:
Got To Be There by Michael Jackson (1972) vs. Hold Me 'Til The Morning Comes by Paul Anka and Peter Cetera (1983)

Listen closely! I think Michael's "Morning" was the inspiration for the Anka/Cetera "Morning"

Be there in the morning is a line in both songs


 
Last edited:
I strongly believe that Michael’s speaking- and singing-voices were always REAL throughout his career and lifetime, nothing “fake,” “phony” or “him having put on an act/persona” about either one of them, in any way whatsoever. He became well-known to the general public* —— meaning *those outside of the Jackson family’s original home state of Indiana, where the siblings were born and raised before they ever moved to California and became famous —— at the very end of the 1960’s (as he was only about ten or 11 years of age when the brothers first signed their recording contract with the Motown label), and heading towards the Early-1970’s. At the time, his voice was one of the best, if not THE BEST, child Sopranos ever, for a young boy of his age back in those early days of the brothers’ Motown career.

As Michael grew up into his later-adolescence and adulthood, his voice had changed, only ever-so-slightly, from boy Soprano to the still-“young”-sounding, rather androgynous, extremely High Tenor that most of us would become familiar with our having heard it, by the end of the ’70’s and headed towards the turn of the 1980’s. Ever since those early days, he had become one of THE BEST interpreters of other songwriters’ lyrics and work, from “Who’s Lovin’ You?” —— as far back as 1969-’70, or so, which “Smokey” Robinson originally wrote for his own group, The Miracles, about a decade even before Michael recorded, sung and performed his lead vocals with his brothers, together as The Jackson 5 —— all the way up to 2001 and the release of his “Invincible” solo album; The song, “Butterflies,” was originally written by Marsha Ambrosius for Floetry to record. And yet, Michael’s vocals on his version of it were/are SO BEAUTIFUL, that it’s not even funny.

For more than 30 years —— his whole entire adult life, in fact —— Michael worked with his vocal coach/voice teacher, Seth Riggs, who had trained him very well in using the “Speech-Level Singing” method, which helped develop his Vocal Range to expand to more than 4 Octaves, which is quite a broad one, especially for a Male vocalist of any age group.

He didn’t have to depend nor rely upon exclusively using his “Falsetto,” necessarily, though he did use it every once in a while (just not in the way most men do who have much deeper, darker and heavier-timbred voices than what Michael’s naturally light higher-pitched voice-type was, though he could occasionally hit some deep, and almost “Baritone”-sounding, Lower-Register notes in a few songs, when he did his Vocal Range “warm-ups” in 1994 in preparation for recording songs for the “HIStory” album as well, but not very often having sung them), to have sung in the highest notes of his Upper Register —— which remained “Soprano”-like, in my honest opinion, as he never truly “lost” this Upper Register entirely —— even as his Lower one had further expanded slightly downwards, by an extra note or two, within the seven-year period from the earliest beginnings of the “HIStory” era to “Invincible.”
 
Last edited:
He could also hit very low notes. Michael was doing all of his backing vocals himself - 16 track harmonies, recording each harmony set (high to low) separately. I really think MJ had a very wide vocal range.
 
WannaScream;4258510 said:
VNN posted a list of singers in order of widest range. Scroll down to 3 octaves, 4 notes; F#2 to C#6. Sammy Hagar is listed with the same range. More detailed info of notes hit in songs is at The Range Place.

https://www.vintagevinylnews.com/2014/05/digging-deeper-axl-rose-is-not-singer.html
http://therangeplace.boards.net/thread/1892/michael-jackson

I would much rather go by what Seth Riggs had actually said about Michael’s vocal abilities —— and, what Michael, himself, had once said about his own —— than to go and look up something on an inaccurate, heavily-biased Web site that highly favors and greatly over-exaggerates the so-called, non-existent “abilities” of certain “Rock”/“Pop” singers, these people who don’t so much “sing” lyrics as they do a whole lot of screaming and yelling at the top of their voices; Also, there are some people on these lists who really couldn’t hardly sing a note in the first place, even if their lives depended on their doing so.
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122;4258516 said:
I would much rather go by what Seth Riggs had actually said about Michael’s vocal abilities —— and, what Michael, himself, had once said about his own —— than to go and look up something on an inaccurate, heavily-biased Web site that highly favors and greatly over-exaggerates the so-called, non-existent “abilities” of certain “Rock”/“Pop” singers, these people who don’t so much “sing” lyrics as they do a whole lot of screaming and yelling at the top of their voices; Also, there are some people on these lists who really couldn’t hardly sing a note in the first place, even if their lives depended on their doing so.

I just posted the links because I thought they were interesting. It's not biased and it doesn't favour anyone (other than they tend to include popular singers that most people know; actually the singer with the widest range is not included for this reason). All the singers on there have been able to produce the note, even if it's only once. If you have examples of notes they will definitely examine and include them. They already said on the thread they didn't go through all bootlegs and asked if anyone had any examples (they can only go by examples, rather than what people say, hence keeping it a fair comparison).

You sound offended by it but there is not any need to be. This thread seemed to be partly about range (which is only a small aspect of a voice), no one is questioning the beauty of Michaels voice. It clearly states they are only talking about range and that it doesn't take into account other (more subjective) qualities like timbre. The heavy metal vocalists at the top of the list produce terrifying screams (they do hit the notes though and some can sing some of them too) and many would not want to listen to them! Far more people would rather listen to Michael!

Edit; I should add if it's just the one note it looks like they may put it under questionable. It's just a bit of fun! Some people want to work out which notes are in the songs and see which other singers are in the similar range.
 
Last edited:
Anna;4255783 said:
Of course you can naturally be a high tenor. Tenor isn't even the highest range for adult male singers.

I totally agree with you, Anna. But, you must be thinking of the much more unusual and extremely rare cases of adult men whose voice-types were naturally the way they were, most likely due to a hormonal imbalance or other physical abnormality of some kind —— whether they were born with it, or suffered from a serious bodily injury or disease at an early age (before puberty rather than after, with lifelong side effects), whatever the case —— not most so-called “normal” men with fully-functioning bodies.

Do men with unusually light high-pitched voices exist, who don’t rely on their using “Falsetto” in singing, and who have NOTHING physically wrong with them in any way that would necessarily affect their voice and vocal cords? Probably, there may be. Are there other men with voice-types similar to, but not exactly like, Michael’s? I’m very sure that there are.

As with all human beings of either gender, there are just as many wide varieties of different Male voice-types as there are Female; There are as many different ones between individuals of one gender as there are between one gender and the other. People’s voices differ from one another in such aspects as pitch, timbre, Vocal Range, Upper and Lower Registers, and so forth.
 
Last edited:
WannaScream;4258519 said:
I just posted the links because I thought they were interesting. It's not biased and it doesn't favour anyone (other than they tend to include popular singers that most people know; actually the singer with the widest range is not included for this reason). All the singers on there have been able to produce the note, even if it's only once. If you have examples of notes they will definitely examine and include them. They already said on the thread they didn't go through all bootlegs and asked if anyone had any examples (they can only go by examples, rather than what people say, hence keeping it a fair comparison).

You sound offended by it but there is not any need to be. This thread seemed to be partly about range (which is only a small aspect of a voice), no one is questioning the beauty of Michaels voice. It clearly states they are only talking about range and that it doesn't take into account other (more subjective) qualities like timbre. The heavy metal vocalists at the top of the list produce terrifying screams (they do hit the notes though and some can sing some of them too) and many would not want to listen to them! Far more people would rather listen to Michael!

Edit; I should add if it's just the one note it looks like they may put it under questionable. It's just a bit of fun! Some people want to work out which notes are in the songs and see which other singers are in the similar range.

Wanna Scream, I’m not so much “offended.” It’s just that, when it comes to anyone involved with any part, role or aspect, of the so-called “mainstream” media —— however large or small, in whatever form it may take (whether it be in print or online), especially, when Michael’s name is brought up, as well as the names of other equally talented people —— the bias that certain publishers, editors, authors and so-called “journalists” have in favoring certain genres of music over others (as well as certain performers over others) is SO incredibly obvious that the very idea of any member of the public NOT being fully aware that it exists is absolutely ridiculous.

Who is ultimately responsible for compiling these lists, writing (mostly) favorable articles on “So-and-So” and whomever else,* whomever’s music these editors, publishers and “journalists” just so happen to like —— after all, such lists, magazine articles and books are based mostly on the very heavily subjective personal opinion of a book or magazine article’s author(s), and on that of a particular list’s compiler(s) —— in citing their “favorite” performers’ names to be placed at or near the very top of such a list, or to be favorably written about in a book, magazine article, or an online “blog” post? Who gets to decide, vote on and have his/her/their say-so regarding whose name gets put where? *By the way, I am not naming anyone else in this post, specifically, except for Michael’s name.

Can someone (an author, for instance, a magazine’s editor and its publisher, a T.V. broadcaster’s program, a “blogger” or poster online), for example, write an article or book, air a T.V. program, “blog” and post online or even make a feature film, that only states the facts regarding whom he or she is writing about, without resorting to malicious tabloid LIES, gossip, and so forth, or be fair to those whose names truly and rightfully deserve to be placed on lists where they are —— either that, or such lists not even being made at all, because, they are based on the opinion of the person or group of people who compiled them, anyway —— or, put up a Web site that’s free from ALL biases and equally fair to as many different genres of music (along with the artists who sing, dance, play instruments and/or perform onstage) as possible?
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122;4258679 said:
Wanna Scream, I’m not so much “offended.” It’s just that, when it comes to anyone involved with any part, role or aspect, of the so-called “mainstream” media —— however large or small, in whatever form it may take (whether it be in print or online), especially, when Michael’s name is brought up, as well as the names of other equally talented people —— the bias that certain publishers, editors, authors and so-called “journalists” have in favoring certain genres of music over others (as well as certain performers over others) is SO incredibly obvious that the very idea of any member of the public NOT being fully aware that it exists is absolutely ridiculous.

Who is ultimately responsible for compiling these lists, writing (mostly) favorable articles on “So-and-So” and whomever else,* whomever’s music these editors, publishers and “journalists” just so happen to like —— after all, such lists, magazine articles and books are based mostly on the very heavily subjective personal opinion of a book or magazine article’s author(s), and on that of a particular list’s compiler(s) —— in citing their “favorite” performers’ names to be placed at or near the very top of such a list, or to be favorably written about in a book, magazine article, or an online “blog” post? Who gets to decide, vote on and have his/her/their say-so regarding whose name gets put where? *By the way, I am not naming anyone else in this post, specifically, except for Michael’s name.

Can someone (an author, for instance, a magazine’s editor and its publisher, a T.V. broadcaster’s program, a “blogger” or poster online), for example, write an article or book, air a T.V. program, “blog” and post online or even make a feature film, that only states the facts regarding whom he or she is writing about, without resorting to malicious tabloid LIES, gossip, and so forth, or be fair to those whose names truly and rightfully deserve to be placed on lists where they are —— either that, or such lists not even being made at all, because, they are based on the opinion of the person or group of people who compiled them, anyway —— or, put up a Web site that’s free from ALL biases and equally fair to as many different genres of music (along with the artists who sing, dance, play instruments and/or perform onstage) as possible?

I'm not even convinced you've clicked on the links. Firstly, the list contains no reviews at all, just vocal range placements. Secondly, The Range Place people are musicians, not journalists. If you'd looked at it you will have seen they wrote really positively about MJ's talent. If you think his vocal coach reporting on his talent is less biased, then that is not any less ridiculous.

I can't believe two fans, who think MJ is really talented, are getting into a debate over a site that claims MJ is really talented. That being said, I'm going to bow out of this discussion with you now!
 
Last edited:
Actually, Wanna Scream, I did look up both Web sites, even had joined one of them, just to find out what it was, out of curiosity.

I now understand what you were trying to say, but O.T.O.H., get SO doggone fed up, sick and tired of the way that almost his entire adult career as a vocalist has been underrated, overlooked, put aside and everything but completely ignored altogether, to mainly comment on his dancing skills and showmanship as an entertainer —— except for the “Thriller”/“Victory”-era phenomenon of the Early- to Mid-1980’s and its aftermath, when Michael had his biggest musical-career success ever —— (as such pinpointing and focusing on his personal private life, on any- and everything else but music [which is really, really sad], wouldn’t happen until the later years, particularly, from the Early-’90’s onwards) that you will understand how I feel as well, when it comes to the media and anything even remotely having to do with them in the slightest degree at all.

And, as for these lists, they either may or may not be trusted and accurate, depending on whomever compiled them. There is nothing for me to really disagree with you about, necessarily, for each of us to keep expressing our points of view, here.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Conrad Murray (who had access to MJ’s medical records while he was his personal doctor in 2009) revealed that MJ was given hormone injections since the early stages of his puberty in order to delay puberty so as to continue keeping his voice high pitched.

But it was not just those injections, because MJ also used to train his voice a lot in order to remain high.

Teddy Riley revealed that MJ was capable of having not only a high voice but also a deep voice, but it was a matter of choice for MJ to keep having that high voice.

According to Teddy Riley, MJ always wanted to be a high singer, which meant that he had to speak high as well in order to be able to maintain that high voice when he sang.

Teddy Riley compared the training of the human voice with the training of the body’s muscles.

Also, Teddy Riley revealed that it was Seth Riggs who made MJ talk high always, regardless of the circumstances:

“No matter what you do, when you talk to people you talk high!” (Seth Riggs)

Teddy Riley also revealed that MJ used to play pranks on him through telephone by imitating certain deep voices.

MJ’s deep voice is also apparent on certain of his on-stage appearances, like when uttering few times the word “You” towards the end of ‘Man In The Mirror’ (at the 1988 Grammy Awards).

The bottomline is that MJ had a wide vocal range.
 
mj_frenzy;4264071 said:
Dr. Conrad Murray (who had access to MJ’s medical records while he was his personal doctor in 2009) revealed that MJ was given hormone injections since the early stages of his puberty in order to delay puberty so as to continue keeping his voice high pitched.

But it was not just those injections, because MJ also used to train his voice a lot in order to remain high.

Teddy Riley revealed that MJ was capable of having not only a high voice but also a deep voice, but it was a matter of choice for MJ to keep having that high voice.

According to Teddy Riley, MJ always wanted to be a high singer, which meant that he had to speak high as well in order to be able to maintain that high voice when he sang.

Teddy Riley compared the training of the human voice with the training of the body’s muscles.

Also, Teddy Riley revealed that it was Seth Riggs who made MJ talk high always, regardless of the circumstances:

No matter what you do, when you talk to people you talk high!” (Seth Riggs)

Teddy Riley also revealed that MJ used to play pranks on him through telephone by imitating certain deep voices.

MJ’s deep voice is also apparent on certain of his on-stage appearances, like when uttering few times the word “You” towards the end of ‘Man In The Mirror’ (at the 1988 Grammy Awards).

The bottomline is that MJ had a wide vocal range.


While it is true that Michael had a wide vocal range, Michael was NOT given hormone injections to keep his voice high during puberty. The murderer, Conrad Murray, is a liar and not credible. Btw, I have never heard of or seen any quote from Seth Riggs telling Michael to speak in a high voice when you talk to people. Where is the source of that supposed “quote”?
 
MJJFan105;4255758 said:
How did MJ keep his high Tenor voice? What other male singer has a high Tenor voice like MJ? I read that Joe injected MJ with some hormones when he was 10 to 18 years old to keep his high Tenor voice? That also cause him to act childlike and hang around other boys. Is that true that MJ's voice is maintained high by hormone injection? Can a natural man's voice be that high Tenor? Either way if it's true or not, MJ is still a great singer and artist. You have to do what you have to do to be the BEST!

That’s not true that Joe injected Michael with hormones to keep his voice high. ANOTHER tabloid lie. Btw, I guess none of you have heard Jackie, Michael’s oldest brother, speak? His voice is MUCH higher than Michael when he speaks, of course people, even fans, don’t notice that.🤔FTR, Michael is a tenor, but his tenor is not usually high. I know, because I work with male voices who are higher than Michael’s.

Finally, don’t believe everything that you read. SOME things are just not rational, in other words, don’t make sense. To put it bluntly, if Jackie’s voice is even higher than Michael’s, why has no one accused Joe of injecting Jackie with hormones to keep his voice high?
We all know when it comes to Michael, people will say and believe anything.😕
 
Joe injected? Man the jacksons are the 1st ppl i heard to be 1st at everything. 1st it was mj turning himself white....THAT SHIT IS IMPOSSIBLE to take melanin from your skin. Then him & his sisters r the same person...man oh man....what an incredible family the media makes regular human beings be
 
Michael had a deep voice. he just knew how to change the pitch of his voice to lows and highs. his voice was still sort of high but not very high. his voice was kind of in the middle.
 
To ALL of you commenting on Michael and his adult singing-voice, in this thread:

1.) He NEVER, EVER (contrary to what people so desperately want to believe about him) “faked” the natural sound of his voice, no matter whether he used it for singing or for speech. Those posters who have issues with the fact that his voice was 100% REAL, they are the ones who keep bringing up this ignorant, stupid business of supposed, alleged “fakery” and “phoniness” going on, when there was no such thing.​

2.) Michael was definitely capable of reaching very high notes in his Upper Register without his necessarily having to rely on, or to depend upon, using “Falsetto” like most Male singers do, who have much deeper voices than what his was.​

3.) Michael had an extremely broad Vocal Range of at least 4 Octaves (according to what Seth Riggs —— who was his voice-teacher for more than three decades, and one of the few people who knew anything about what his voice was already capable of, through having worked with him —— had once said, regarding his voice and its abilities, though he very well may have been able to do a whole lot more than what he wanted to reveal to the public, as some things he preferred to keep to himself).​

I strongly believe that, while both older brother Jackie and Michael had nearly the same identical pitch of voice, their vocal tone (or, timbre) was each completely different —— as Jackie’s tone sounded the much, much “older” of the two brothers, while Michael’s sounded “younger” —— so, don’t confuse “timbre” with “pitch.” In fact —— except for Tito, who has the deepest, lowest-pitched and heaviest voice —— nearly ALL of the Jackson brothers have soft-spoken natural voices, anyway, with Jackie’s and Michael’s having been the highest-pitched.
 
And where, MJFrenzy, do you think Conrad Murray got his outrageously far-fetched ideas from, to put in his own book? He got them, more than likely, from a doctor who had never even examined Michael as one of his patients —— much LESS than that, Michael’s ever having set foot in his office —— let alone, their ever having met one another. This doctor also wrote a book, several years before Murray did, that originally came up with this stupid, ignorant, outright bold-faced LIE.
 
And where, MJFrenzy, do you think Conrad Murray got his outrageously far-fetched ideas from, to put in his own book? He got them, more than likely, from a doctor who had never even examined Michael as one of his patients —— much LESS than that, Michael’s ever having set foot in his office —— let alone, their ever having met one another. This doctor also wrote a book, several years before Murray did, that originally came up with this stupid, ignorant, outright bold-faced LIE. Here are some comments from posts on another board, discussing that very subject matter:

This link below claims that Michael took Cyproterone (an antiandrogen) not only to thwart acne but also to keep from developing into a full man.

http://www.feelnubia.com/index.php/culture/lali/128-qmj-was-castratedq.html

Being that he had “Peter Pan Syndrome,” this doesn't seem too far fetched. Though if he ever took one of these pills, I think most likely he started around the “Bad” Era.

First of all, the link you posted is nothing but the latest “new” version of a very old story. It’s an ancient piece-of-garbage rumor that has been circulating around the Internet ever since Michael had passed, and had probably been in existence (in some form, or another, only changing the circumstances of “who did what to him, when”) dating back to when he first came fully out of puberty in his late teen years.

Because of this type of speculation concerning his voice and how it eventually ended up having sounded like it had, everything from questioning his gender to negative assumptions being made about his personal life has been the subject matter of “tabloid” gossip.

This time, it involves a doctor; Though he may be quite expert in the field of medicine he specializes in, he absolutely does NOT have the medical training, expertise, knowledge nor understanding of anything —— be it physically, mentally or otherwise, for that matter —— about Michael Jackson at all, whatsoever, to base his personal opinion on (and, more importantly, not one single shred of solid evidence to back up such ridiculous, outrageous, far-fetched claims as he makes), regarding the subject matter of his book.

What this doctor was trying to promote, at the time, is not based on fact, but only states his views speculating as to what might have happened to Michael during his youth. The article posted on the Web site —— a review of the book’s content —— is factually wrong. Rather than bring the truth out, and come forward with it, the book’s author merely puts out a “new” twist on an old LIE:


“Was Michael Jackson Castrated to Insure his 3-Octave Voice?”

“A few years after his death, news linking late King of Pop Michael Jackson with abuse of prescription drugs made the rounds again, as a French doctor alleged that Michael Jackson owed his legendary three octave voice to chemical castration.

Alain Branchereau, an opera buff and professor of vascular surgery at Timone University Hospital in France's Mediterranean port of Marseille, told the French News Agency AFP that he discussed Jackson’s unusual range with colleagues and they deduced that the Pop Star might have been accidentally castrated through medications used to treat acne —— a condition Jackson suffered from at the age of 12.

Experts say that Jackson might have used Cyproterone —— a drug used widely for the treatment of acne in the sixties and seventies and until the development of Leuprolide, Cyproterone was one of the few drugs used to treat precocious puberty. It was also used in animal experimentation to investigate the actions of androgens in fetal sexual differentiation. Cyproterone is an anti-androgen, which works by suppressing the production of testosterone —— the male hormone.

A 1966 experiment investigated a 'homosexual model' looking at the effect of anti-androgens on sexual behavior and preference. Speculations became rife that the prolonged use of the drug might have been deliberately inflicted on the then teen-star as a means of protecting his vocal assets. In the opinion of Alain Branchereau, Jackson had the ‘voice of a castrato!’ ”


____, I only quoted the article, itself. This is a review of a book, written by an author who only has expertise in his particular medical field, not by someone whose word, or personal opinion, is to be taken at face-value as solid, credible “proof” or evidence (of whatever it was —— that either may or may not have happened to Michael when he was a child —— according to his view) and shouldn’t be questioned, just because he is a doctor.

That’s equally just as bad as saying, “Michael’s voice was a ‘fake,’ a ‘put-on,’ an ‘act’ - just so he could create an ‘image’ for himself.” The reason why I referred to this article, calling it “a ‘new’ twist on an old LIE” in my previous comments, is because of the fact that some form, or variation, of this same ridiculous LIE has been in existence —— at one time or another, but told in different ways, using different circumstances —— ever since Michael grew up out of his childhood/adolescence and showed the obvious physical signs of his having become a MAN.

Though his voice didn’t change nearly as drastically as some (even posters on this board, to be honest) would like to believe it had, it —— without any doubt or question —— absolutely DID change, however slightly the degree. He never again would sound quite exactly like he did as a young boy, yet, his voice always maintained its “young” sound; As his Lower Range expanded, he didn’t “lose” his Upper Range completely.

People make up stories about him, still, to this day. All his adult life, they have, and will continue to. Why go over every single statement and claim made in this article, the doctor’s book and everything related to it, if what I have read of it is already known and proven to be false? That would make no sense at all. The book, the review article, and everything else related to it, it has no credibility, not even in one sentence of it.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your post. It is sad that some “fans” actually believe the crap that these people say about Michael without any thought or research. All it really takes is COMMON SENSE. You don’t have to be a genius in order to use common sense and rationalization. Is it any wonder that haters use and believe crap about Michael when even sone “fans” promote that garbage.��
 
Michael voice wasn't all that deep. it's wasn't all that high either. it was in between. Michael didn't have a childhood and was abuse as a child.
 
Last edited:
I think Michael voice got deeper as he got older like in his 30's and later. in his 20's his voice was way more higher. Michael had weird voice wide range.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top