Cascio track are really Michael, believe or not. I'm going to prove it. (Some explanation here.)

[SHOCK]

Exactly! There is really no debate about the fact that his voice sounds different on those recordings. We just have different reasons for why that is, I guess. I just think logically, there is only one thing that makes sense. It has to be him. Not only that, but they are good songs, IMO. I think his voice also sounds different on HT, but not the same. If 2000 Watts and Shout came out on this album, people would think they were fake. I don't doubt that for a second.

Maybe a few people would, since I remember back when they were released a small number of folks didn't believe it was him. However, I think majority of us would have again known those songs are all Michael because of the very distinct way he pronounces words, etc, which is very audible during the rap verses in Shout, for example. With 2000 Watts, the technical proof would have been just the pitch/key change of the song in an audio program, and any disbelievers would hear Michael clearly. That's really the main factor in the argument that the Cascio songs are not MJ -- His vocal sounds are so extremely unique, it's easy to distinguish between his voice and another person's, at least, when you know what to listen for.

 

[tricia70]

All the people who believe the vocals are real will say 'sterling job', everyone else will not be interested. It's human nature to only be interested in evidence that supports your opinion. To that end, it may have been more useful if analysis was conducted by someone who wasn't biased and trying to prove one way or another.

That is all.

That's true. I know I believe all the songs are MJ 100%. The estate and Sony have forensic proof and enough evidence to take this to court if necessary and win by a landslide. Now, if only all these non-believers could walk the walk and sue the estate/sony then we could finally put this to rest. Let's go non-believers sue them!

I appreciate people's effort in "proving" Michael is on the tracks.

At the same time, this whole situation is very exhausting. I haven't even got a copy of the album; but, I felt so worn out.

What other Michael Jackson song that required fans to run all sort of pitching up, pitching down, striping vocals, remixing, etc. to make Michael's vocal more clear?

TBH, even the vocals are 100% genuine, Keep Your Head Up, Monster and Breaking News aren't really that great. There is nothing innovative or unforgettable about those tracks. I have no problem in saying this in front of Michael. I'm not trashing the songs, but those songs are not significant additions to the legendary Michael Jackson catalog.

I'm still puzzled by the Estate's decision to include those tracks. I guess people ike us, who are scratching heads and whose hair is falling down, remain the minority. The casual fans and the public who don't breath Michael's music everyday won't know the difference.

Well apparently you just don't like the album, what a shame, but that's your taste. And why wouldn't the estate include these tracks? They are awesome imo and many, many others opinions. Those three songs imo are better than a lot of tracks in Invincible, and I love Invincible btw.

So what you are saying is that the casual fan and the public are the only ones that won't know the difference? what? I've been a die hard Michael fan for well over 20 years and ALL I listen to is Michael's music. AND I do hear the difference,and in my die hard opinion it is Michael Jackson in all the tracks. So please don't go there with this casual fan/general public nonsense. That argument has proven to be nonsensical. Many die hards believe it is MJ 100% IN ALL tracks.

 

[tricia70]

Thank you Topflux. I know you were one of the non-believers, but at least you have been reasonable enough to gather your own evidence to come up with a conclusion that satisfies you. Enjoy the album.

 

[Thrill]

Now Teddy says he has seen proof of outtakes

Question to Teddy:
@TeddyRiley1 Cascios claim there are no outtakes because they had to make room on hard drive. Is that true?

His answer:
@Dangerous_Inc THEY DO HAVE A FEW. I WITNESS MYSELF AT THEIR HOME. AND PAPERWORK OF MJ WRITING, TEXT MSG FROM HIM MSGING EDDIE, AND MORE.

 

[love is magical]

Well apparently you just don't like the album, what a shame, but that's your taste. And why wouldn't the estate include these tracks? They are awesome imo and many, many others opinions. Those three songs imo are better than a lot of tracks in Invincible, and I love Invincible btw.

So what you are saying is that the casual fan and the public are the only ones that won't know the difference? what? I've been a die hard Michael fan for well over 20 years and ALL I listen to is Michael's music. AND I do hear the difference,and in my die hard opinion it is Michael Jackson in all the tracks. So please don't go there with this casual fan/general public nonsense. That argument has proven to be nonsensical. Many die hards believe it is MJ 100% IN ALL tracks.

Wow... calm down please.

First, I didn't say I don't like the album. I always said this album is indeed an enjoyable one. I also said I love KYHU, which is a Cascio track. I enjoy Hold My Hand, Hollywood Tonight, Best of Joy, Behind the Mask and Much Too Soon. So, APPARENTLY, I don't dislike the album.

Second, I'm entitled to my opinion. There is nothing I should be ashamed of myself. Thus far, I have expressed my opinions while showing respect to others. I have never attacked anyone. I have never tried to convince anyone to change their minds. I have never claimed the songs are fake.

So, in my opinion, Monster and Breaking News are not strong enough. If the songs are truly ready to be released, then why so much tweeting is needed. It's true that Michael's voice is stacked so much in Breaking News. What's so non-sensical in the above statement? I didn't say Michael is not in the song.

Also, I didn't say ONLY the casual fans and general public can't tell the difference. What I tried to say is that casual fans and general public are not as familiar to Michael's voice as hardcore fans. Again, what's so non-sensical about it? Seriously, do casual fans know Tabloid Junkie, She Drives Me Wild, This Time Around, Money? Do they know Michael's habits as much as we do? Do they recognize the finger snaps in the beginning of Man In the Mirror? Do they know the hand claps in Earth Song?

I mentioned in other thread that this controversy doesn't cause a wide scale damage becasue the general public don't go to forum like this and follow this discussion. The general public may not realize how different these tracks sound. Again, what's so wrong about what I just said.

You are right that many hardcore fans believe it is 100% Michael in all those tracks. Nothing wrong at all. At the same time, there are also many hardcore fans who believe the otherwise. And, there are fans, like me, who believe Michael is in the tracks, but other vocals are also used to fill the gaps. Can I have a voice and say my opinon? There is no need to be condescending.

Gee... some people get so carried away by the excitement of this album and they become overly protective of this project. It seems some slightly non-favorable posts are not allowed anymore.

I'm proud to be a Michael Jackson fan. I pre-ordered the album. But, my opinon hasn't changed. I have no problem in saying it in front of Michael. Monster and Breaking News are not good enough to be on the album.

Just becasue I'm not super joyous and enthusiastic about this album doesn't mean I don't love Michael. There is not one day that went by that I don't think about him.

 

[Topflux]

With 2000 Watts, the technical proof would have been just the pitch/key change of the song in an audio program, and any disbelievers would hear Michael clearly.

It would be just as easy to make these Cascio tracks sound it more clear if you could re-pitch all the pitched notes, words and syllables separately. But you can't do that when it's the final mix. All the harmony and music would be messed up. And if some notes has been processed more than just pitched, it's hard to make it original if you don't know exactly how it's processed..

 

[Roosje]

Now Teddy says he has seen proof of outtakes

Question to Teddy:
@TeddyRiley1 Cascios claim there are no outtakes because they had to make room on hard drive. Is that true?

His answer:
@Dangerous_Inc THEY DO HAVE A FEW. I WITNESS MYSELF AT THEIR HOME. AND PAPERWORK OF MJ WRITING, TEXT MSG FROM HIM MSGING EDDIE, AND MORE.

Yay! Proof after all. Not that I needed this, but if this is shown to fans, I'm sure doubts will finally fade.

 

[barok232]

What proof? What did I miss?

 

[Pretty_Young_Thriller]

I don't understand why, if the Cascios and Teddy have proof, they don't just release it and put it all to an end?

 

[mjjmsc]

probably the songs are recorded in 2 keys and after that overlaped.michael loved layers;-)

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Yay! Proof after all. Not that I needed this, but if this is shown to fans, I'm sure doubts will finally fade.

How is this proof though?

I don't understand why, if the Cascios and Teddy have proof, they don't just release it and put it all to an end?

Exactly...just show it. I don't believe this at all. If they really have this, they can show it, and the whole fiasco would be over, but nope..none of that.

 

[Alma]

I don't understand why, if the Cascios and Teddy have proof, they don't just release it and put it all to an end?

'Cause they don't have any. They're in the process of creating 'proofs' themselves, by the sounds of it. What better occasion then on the Oprah show to bury all the myths? Riley is, unfortunately, another fraud, that didn't have a hit in years and grasps at any straws he can with this album, the tracks of it on which he worked were over-overproduced, thus ruined. So they can all run their mouths all they want. One doesn't need to prove it's Michael on no track, his voice is unmistakable, no matter how slightly changed it'd become over the years.

 

[barok232]

'Cause they don't have any. They're in the process of creating 'proofs' themselves, by the sounds of it. What better occasion then on the Oprah show to bury all the myths? Riley is, unfortunately, another fraud, that didn't have a hit in years and grasps at any straws he can with this album, the tracks of it on which he worked were over-overproduced, thus ruined. So they can all run their mouths all they want. One doesn't need to prove it's Michael on no track, his voice is unmistakable, no matter how slightly changed it'd become over the years.

^ This

 

[pianoman04]

'Cause they don't have any. They're in the process of creating 'proofs' themselves, by the sounds of it. What better occasion then on the Oprah show to bury all the myths? Riley is, unfortunately, another fraud, that didn't have a hit in years and grasps at any straws he can with this album, the tracks of it on which he worked were over-overproduced, thus ruined. So they can all run their mouths all they want. One doesn't need to prove it's Michael on no track, his voice is unmistakable, no matter how slightly changed it'd become over the years.

And this would be the reason why I hope this album fails. Miserably.

 

[Gugu_134]

And this would be the reason why I hope this album fails. Miserably.

In this way Michaels name will be once again blackened. I don't understand you, musicians use backvocals on most of their songs and it's okay, but if backsingers were used for this album it is fake and you want it to fail. Calm dawn in time you will accept what we have and be thankfull.

 

[wolfrevenant]

In this way Michaels name will be once again blackened. I don't understand you, musicians use backvocals on most of their songs and it's okay, but if backsingers were used for this album it is fake and you want it to fail. Calm dawn in time you will accept what we have and be thankfull.

Their concern isn't whether Michael sang on the background vocals or not. Their concern is that the lead vocals may not be Michael. Hence, wanting the album to fail since these songs are not sung by Michael, and because they don't want Michael's legacy to be ridiculed/praised for another artist's singing.

 

[dangerous dave]

'Cause they don't have any. They're in the process of creating 'proofs' themselves, by the sounds of it. What better occasion then on the Oprah show to bury all the myths? Riley is, unfortunately, another fraud, that didn't have a hit in years and grasps at any straws he can with this album, the tracks of it on which he worked were over-overproduced, thus ruined. So they can all run their mouths all they want. One doesn't need to prove it's Michael on no track, his voice is unmistakable, no matter how slightly changed it'd become over the years.

true. great post

 

[whosbad88]

the only song that doesn't really sound like MJ is Breaking News. the song has grown on my but i'm still not totally sure. i hope it is MJ. i think i'm just gonna go with the belief that it is.

SideNote: the cascio's home studio prolly wasn't very sophisticated or state of the art where as a home studio like the one in Hayvenhurst or Neverland would've been beter quality.

 

[Topflux]

probably the songs are recorded in 2 keys and after that overlaped.michael loved layers;-)

That's what I thought. If you mean Michael's real voice is harmonized with his other, not-so-real, pitched voice? That would explain if in some of the vocal harmony his voice is the upper one and in some the lower one some of the notes sound like him and some don't. His real voice should not be the less dominating in the harmony all the time but when it is, the result sounds too much altered and then it sounds more original pitching the whole songs a bit up like I did.

 

[Fentman]

Either that, or we need a deeper, more scientific approach to analysing these tracks. One can edit these tracks as much as they see fit, but if it still boils down to having people actually listen to these tracks to make a judgement, then you're still going to get very biased views, and neither groups of opinions are going to budge.

Of course, drawing conclusions from a scientific analysis of the tracks may still be subjective, but I suppose it's more of a "respected" approach that people can reasonably agree/disagree on.

No, what we all need is common sense. The tracks are Michael.

 

[Topflux]

That layering like vocal harmony theory I think explains a lot. I think it also explains the weird vibrato. Probably if they pitched Michael's vibrato up or down Melodyne's not the best processing shortened or longered the pitched vibratos. Then layered it messes up the overall vibrato of course. Like I said you can't use Melodyne that much when processing. They should have processed it separately with quality dsp, not with Melodyne. It's one of the biggest mistakes to use it that much and should be well-known. Melodyne isn't made to re-pitch singing at all but mostly other instruments and only to correct vocals pitches if they are near enough what they should be. Like they should be nearer what they should than what they shouldn't. That's about 1/4 steps like I said before..

 

[madmijack]

Indeed, when I listen to the tracks on the lower quality stereo hi-fi or other devices, you don't hear Michael singing at all.

However, I was surprised to find back Michael's voice and timbre when listening on some higher quality stereo supports.

So as a conclusion, it would be interesting to know among the non-believers and believers what brands of stereo devices we use to listen to the three tracks to try to understand what makes us hear (or not) Michael's voice timbre and pitch.

For my part I don't hear Michael when I listen to him neither on the computer SONY-VAIO nor on the loudspeakers connected CREATIVE connected to SONY VAIO.

However, when I put the CD in my car on ROCKFORD FOSGATE cd player with 8 loudspeakers, my ears have impression to hear Michael's timbre that was damaged via the computer manipulations or processings or simply that the recording quality wasn't the best.

I've got Bose hi-fi speakers with the perfect sound quality. They are very expensive but they sound 100% the way the musicians write and hear their own music.
However, comparing to other cheaper sound systems, the hi-fi ones give you less Michael. It's not Michael at all in this hi-fi sound! :no:

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I've got Bose hi-fi speakers with the perfect sound quality. They are very expensive but they sound 100% the way the musicians write and hear their own music.
However, comparing to other cheaper sound systems, the hi-fi ones give you less Michael. It's not Michael at all in this hi-fi sound! :no:

I don't know, it is really strange. Because on my laptop I don't hear his voice timbre at all, while in my car I can clearly hear that it is Michael's timbre, but damaged or strecthed through processing by computer tools I suppose.

 

[Topflux]

I've got Bose hi-fi speakers with the perfect sound quality. They are very expensive but they sound 100% the way the musicians write and hear their own music.
However, comparing to other cheaper sound systems, the hi-fi ones give you less Michael. It's not Michael at all in this hi-fi sound! :no:

But what is your amplifier, that's the most important..? Speakers don't mean anything only. I have very high quality B&O amp and quality scandinavian hand-made plus JPW speakers and I also hear him more with that than with my cpu/mobile phone speakers or with my mini-hifi.

 

[kopwatcher]

I listen to music exclusively on Sennheiser HD 590 headphones through my PC, and cannot hear MJ on lead vocals on any Cascio songs.

 

[Topflux]

I listen to music exclusively on Sennheiser HD 590 headphones through my PC, and cannot hear MJ on lead vocals on any Cascio songs.

Is there any change when listening clips I altered?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I listen to music exclusively on Sennheiser HD 590 headphones through my PC, and cannot hear MJ on lead vocals on any Cascio songs.

Through PC I don't hear Mike either, but on CD on a high quality stereo hi fi I can clearly hear his voice that was reworked, damaged or altered by softwares., in other words a bit computerized.

 

[kasume]

The only person that can prove those vocals are Michael's is Michael Jackson himself.

Sadly, Michael is not here to prove or disprove anything.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Is there any change when listening clips I altered?

Sorry, Topflux, but from what I heard what you did, it didn't change anything except giving the faster and higher pitch of already unrecognizable voice.

 

[kopwatcher]

Is there any change when listening clips I altered?

No change on Monster, still blatantly not him.
I can hear the difference on KYHU & BN, sounds closer, but still not him.

Through PC I don't hear Mike either, but on CD on a high quality stereo hi fi I can clearly hear his voice that was reworked, damaged or altered by softwares., in other words a bit computerized.

I have a high quality sound card and headphones...if I can't hear MJ with that, I never will.