Latest on MJJC
love is magical
Proud Member
Ivy, Bumper's long post is coming. Get ready!!!
Ashtanga
Proud Member
love is magical
Proud Member
OMG people.... :lol:
What a strange beast. :fear:
:lmao:
Hi Ash! I love your popcorn gif.
Ashtanga
Proud Member
:lol:
This thread is so excited :girl_sigh: ... but something is missing
:thinking: ... > POPCORN!!! :wild:
:fear:
yes. Roger Friedman starting reporting that 3T was saying the vocals fake since mid to late october. and BN streamed Nov 8th? so 3 weeks before. later we learned that this was indeed after the songs were completed and made the cut (teddy tweeted he finished working on songs mid october. malachi's manager was contacted late october). Taaj had a kinda cryptic tweet in answer to RF. (RF had written about the album release finally being determined and commented that it perhaps meant all the sides agreed and Taaj rejected that). 3T started tweeting shortly before BN streamed and heavily after it first streamed.
gain? nothing I guess. he's in NY so he might be close to Cascio's.
Some people just have an extremely short fuse when it comes to this issue.. they shouldn't, but I can understand why the moderating team wanted to try something to calm things down. As long as people are still allowed to freely express their opinion (though perhaps in a more restrained manner than they'd like to), it's alright imo
believe me it's not really the opinions or how heated it gets. It's actually how people say what they say. What I learned is that everyone here loves Michael very much and they feel heavily insulted if their love is questioned. For example regardless of what anyone might think about this subject if they get a response that goes like "why can't you hear? what kind of a MJ fan are you?' etc they feel like it's a real and not real fan thing.
and the rest is respect issue that gets reported. again it's about style. the issue isn't disagreeing but not insulting the other people's opinion while disagreeing.
what no!!! I haven't even answered the other ones yet. I'm sleepy now and have meetings all this week. awww I'll catch up later then.
You guys, I wanted to tell you about a new sub forum here:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/forums/254-The-HOT-SEAT
It's called the HOT SEAT and yoiu can set one up so people can ask you quyestions about whatever.
I'm just advertising.
:hijacked:fftopic: :girl_whistle:
Sorry! Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/forums/254-The-HOT-SEAT
It's called the HOT SEAT and yoiu can set one up so people can ask you quyestions about whatever.
I'm just advertising.
:hijacked:
fftopic: :girl_whistle:Sorry! Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
PART I – REGISTERING A SONG
I would like to share with you some important -MICHAEL related- points regarding the issues that have been neglected so far. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
First of all, I am not forcing my opinion on anyone, I am simply sharing it. If I omit anything, please forgive me or correct me, as I happen to be a language expert, not a legal expert. <o></o>
After observing the situation from afar -as far as regulations and laws are concerned- it seems that no legal infraction has been done. It seems to me that we can end the debate regarding the laws and regulations surrounding the album MICHAEL.<o></o>
In other words, SONY is legally clean and cannot be condemned. I am not defending SONY, but from what we know at this point it would be a waste of time, money and energy to even think that SONY could be condemned. <o></o>
However, from what I understand, here is the issue:<o></o>
Eddie Cascio registered the songs in a matter of days after Michael Jackson's death. The same claims that the vocals on the songs are Michael's.<o></o>
Now, Michael is not here to confirm or deny it. And, as far as SONY is concerned, they probably didn't know the songs existed at that point. The question is, does it mean that since Michael Jackson is dead, anyone can come up with any song, register it and claim that the vocals on it are Michael's? The answer is of course NO! <o></o>
Well, the question is then, who can confirm it is Michael? The answer: the Estate!
Indeed, if the Estate contradicted Eddie Cascio regarding the vocals and registering the songs under Michael Jackson's name, if I understand correctly, it would have been quite problematic for Eddie Cascio to officially register them as Michael Jackson's songs. So far, we can safely assume that SONY had nothing to do with all that.<o></o>
As Michael's authenticity seems to be guaranteed by the Estate (since Michael is not with us to confirm or deny anything), and since the Estate welcomed Eddie Cascio's tracks as Michael's, the songs are officially and legally considered as Michael's.
End of story.<o></o>
I would like to share with you some important -MICHAEL related- points regarding the issues that have been neglected so far. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o
></o>First of all, I am not forcing my opinion on anyone, I am simply sharing it. If I omit anything, please forgive me or correct me, as I happen to be a language expert, not a legal expert. <o
></o>After observing the situation from afar -as far as regulations and laws are concerned- it seems that no legal infraction has been done. It seems to me that we can end the debate regarding the laws and regulations surrounding the album MICHAEL.<o
></o>In other words, SONY is legally clean and cannot be condemned. I am not defending SONY, but from what we know at this point it would be a waste of time, money and energy to even think that SONY could be condemned. <o
></o>However, from what I understand, here is the issue:<o
></o>Eddie Cascio registered the songs in a matter of days after Michael Jackson's death. The same claims that the vocals on the songs are Michael's.<o
></o>Now, Michael is not here to confirm or deny it. And, as far as SONY is concerned, they probably didn't know the songs existed at that point. The question is, does it mean that since Michael Jackson is dead, anyone can come up with any song, register it and claim that the vocals on it are Michael's? The answer is of course NO! <o
></o>Well, the question is then, who can confirm it is Michael? The answer: the Estate!
Indeed, if the Estate contradicted Eddie Cascio regarding the vocals and registering the songs under Michael Jackson's name, if I understand correctly, it would have been quite problematic for Eddie Cascio to officially register them as Michael Jackson's songs. So far, we can safely assume that SONY had nothing to do with all that.<o
></o>As Michael's authenticity seems to be guaranteed by the Estate (since Michael is not with us to confirm or deny anything), and since the Estate welcomed Eddie Cascio's tracks as Michael's, the songs are officially and legally considered as Michael's.
End of story.<o
></o>BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
PART II – BEFORE QUESTIONING THE AUTHENTICITY
(A) – SADNESS, ANGER & HAPPINESS <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
However, nothing is that simple. The vocals have indeed been questioned to such an extent that forensic experts have been hired to analyze the vocals. Forensic experts are (not always but) usually language experts. <o></o>
So, thanks to my profession as a language expert even if I cannot answer all the questions (such as why the vocals sound so different on those tracks), I can emit some hypotheses based on my linguistical knowledge and expertise. <o></o>
I am humbly asking you to take my word for granted that I work as a language teacher, a professional and sworn translator and a sworn court interpreter. The police had already asked me to help them identify people's mother tongues. It is a part of my job. <o></o>
I do not intend to write my résumé here or sound pompous, but I am asking you to take my word for granted when it comes to some issues related to the pronunciation, timbre and accent on those Cascio tracks. As a matter of fact I speak 5 different languages, dialects or regionalisms not included, and I can understand and translate from 10 different languages in various fields such as medical or even legal reports. <o></o>
That's simply my job and my hobby – languages, linguistics (which includes phonetics and phonology, two very important elements when it comes to analyzing the vocals.).<o></o>
Before I elaborate how reliable forensic the results are, allow me to share with you some basic music psychology.<o></o>
It doesn't matter if you like the music or not. What matters is the fact that when you hear a certain rhythm, it will trigger or amplify certain feelings.
For example, if you listen to slower music, you will either feel nostalgic, calm, sad,... (Why? Slow rhythm, usually low notes,... the same phenomenon can be observed in people's voice when they are sad. We tend to speak more slowly and with a lower voice.):
[youtube]XMbvcp480Y4[/youtube]
If you listen to the following piece, it will probably trigger or amplify anger or a similar feeling (Why? Low notes, but accelerated rhythm, ... the same can be observed in people's voice. Higher notes, strong rhythm, ...):
[youtube]CVT_2XVEwCo&feature=related[/youtube]<o></o>
If you listen to this one, it will probably communicate some joy (Why? Usually high notes and faster rhythm,... the same goes for people's voice. Imagine a friend eager to tell his/her friend some good news. The voice uses higher notes and a fast rhythm out of excitement and joy.):
[youtube]btBLumGcefg[/youtube]
<o></o>
Now, my question: do you need a forensic expert to analyze what you feel when you hear here above different compositions? The answer is of course: NO.<o></o>
Did you need me to tell you all this when listening to these pieces of music? Again, the answer is of course: NO. Your brain does all the job.<o></o>
Similarly, it is wrongly assumed that the baby recognizes its mother's voice. If you put your ear on someone's stomach or lungs and listen to that person speaking, you will be unable to recognize that person's real voice. Likewise, the baby doesn't recognize its mother's voice since its mother's voice is always heard from inside, not from outside the mother's body. <o></o>
On the other hand, the baby will more easily recognize its father's voice as the father's voice always comes from outside. <o></o>
So how does the baby know what its mother feels based on the language? Well, based on the language alone – nothing, since the baby can't speak nor understand, can it? But based on the rhythm of the voice, just like some musical rhythms I posted above, the baby can feel if the mother is sad, angry or happy.<o></o>
With age, the baby, (later the child, the teenager and the adult) gets used to all the voices in the house and can unmistakably recognize his/her mother's, father's , sister's, brother's, grandparent's voices. The brain develops a natural vocal recognition, even if the speaker's voice is altered by different noise, such as background noise on the phone, or in the street, etc.<o></o>
Likewise, Michael Jackson's fans have been very often disregarded. As if they were unable to recognize Michael's voice and as if the sound engineers or forensic experts would know better.<o></o>
Let's be honest here with ourselves. How often have you listened to Michael's voice, how many different songs, how long have you been familiar and on what support have you listened to Michael's voice are all the questions that you should ask yourselves and point out every single part on the Cascio tracks where you think you hear Michael, just like you would swear and be sure you hear your own mother's, father's, sister's, brother's or grandparent's voice. <o></o>
Basically, I am asking you to first be honest with yourselves and second to be as much sure you hear Michael's voice on the Cascio tracks as you would be sure to recognize your mother's or father's voice. <o></o>
And finally, I am asking you to not underestimate fans' knowledge regarding Michael's vocals, whichever side you are on (doubters' or believers') as the forensic experts cannot help you more. Paying them would be a big waste of money as in our case the results can be neither sure 100% nor verified as all other traces have apparently been wiped out. In any case I haven't seen them, have you?<o></o>
(A) – SADNESS, ANGER & HAPPINESS <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o
></o>However, nothing is that simple. The vocals have indeed been questioned to such an extent that forensic experts have been hired to analyze the vocals. Forensic experts are (not always but) usually language experts. <o
></o>So, thanks to my profession as a language expert even if I cannot answer all the questions (such as why the vocals sound so different on those tracks), I can emit some hypotheses based on my linguistical knowledge and expertise. <o
></o>I am humbly asking you to take my word for granted that I work as a language teacher, a professional and sworn translator and a sworn court interpreter. The police had already asked me to help them identify people's mother tongues. It is a part of my job. <o
></o>I do not intend to write my résumé here or sound pompous, but I am asking you to take my word for granted when it comes to some issues related to the pronunciation, timbre and accent on those Cascio tracks. As a matter of fact I speak 5 different languages, dialects or regionalisms not included, and I can understand and translate from 10 different languages in various fields such as medical or even legal reports. <o
></o>That's simply my job and my hobby – languages, linguistics (which includes phonetics and phonology, two very important elements when it comes to analyzing the vocals.).<o
></o>Before I elaborate how reliable forensic the results are, allow me to share with you some basic music psychology.<o
></o>It doesn't matter if you like the music or not. What matters is the fact that when you hear a certain rhythm, it will trigger or amplify certain feelings.
For example, if you listen to slower music, you will either feel nostalgic, calm, sad,... (Why? Slow rhythm, usually low notes,... the same phenomenon can be observed in people's voice when they are sad. We tend to speak more slowly and with a lower voice.):
[youtube]XMbvcp480Y4[/youtube]
If you listen to the following piece, it will probably trigger or amplify anger or a similar feeling (Why? Low notes, but accelerated rhythm, ... the same can be observed in people's voice. Higher notes, strong rhythm, ...):
[youtube]CVT_2XVEwCo&feature=related[/youtube]<o
></o>If you listen to this one, it will probably communicate some joy (Why? Usually high notes and faster rhythm,... the same goes for people's voice. Imagine a friend eager to tell his/her friend some good news. The voice uses higher notes and a fast rhythm out of excitement and joy.):
[youtube]btBLumGcefg[/youtube]
<o
></o>Now, my question: do you need a forensic expert to analyze what you feel when you hear here above different compositions? The answer is of course: NO.<o
></o>Did you need me to tell you all this when listening to these pieces of music? Again, the answer is of course: NO. Your brain does all the job.<o
></o>Similarly, it is wrongly assumed that the baby recognizes its mother's voice. If you put your ear on someone's stomach or lungs and listen to that person speaking, you will be unable to recognize that person's real voice. Likewise, the baby doesn't recognize its mother's voice since its mother's voice is always heard from inside, not from outside the mother's body. <o
></o>On the other hand, the baby will more easily recognize its father's voice as the father's voice always comes from outside. <o
></o>So how does the baby know what its mother feels based on the language? Well, based on the language alone – nothing, since the baby can't speak nor understand, can it? But based on the rhythm of the voice, just like some musical rhythms I posted above, the baby can feel if the mother is sad, angry or happy.<o
></o>With age, the baby, (later the child, the teenager and the adult) gets used to all the voices in the house and can unmistakably recognize his/her mother's, father's , sister's, brother's, grandparent's voices. The brain develops a natural vocal recognition, even if the speaker's voice is altered by different noise, such as background noise on the phone, or in the street, etc.<o
></o>Likewise, Michael Jackson's fans have been very often disregarded. As if they were unable to recognize Michael's voice and as if the sound engineers or forensic experts would know better.<o
></o>Let's be honest here with ourselves. How often have you listened to Michael's voice, how many different songs, how long have you been familiar and on what support have you listened to Michael's voice are all the questions that you should ask yourselves and point out every single part on the Cascio tracks where you think you hear Michael, just like you would swear and be sure you hear your own mother's, father's, sister's, brother's or grandparent's voice. <o
></o>Basically, I am asking you to first be honest with yourselves and second to be as much sure you hear Michael's voice on the Cascio tracks as you would be sure to recognize your mother's or father's voice. <o
></o>And finally, I am asking you to not underestimate fans' knowledge regarding Michael's vocals, whichever side you are on (doubters' or believers') as the forensic experts cannot help you more. Paying them would be a big waste of money as in our case the results can be neither sure 100% nor verified as all other traces have apparently been wiped out. In any case I haven't seen them, have you?<o
></o>
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
(B) MICHAEL – SAD, ANGRY & HAPPY
Of course other feelings (mixed or not) can be triggered and/or amplified by listening to the music. But let's stick to these basic feelings and see how Michael feels when he sings and if you feel the same when you listen to his voice:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
:</FONT></FONT></P><P><FONT size=3><FONT face=Calibri>[youtube]6DQJPL9Yuq0[/youtube]<o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P><P> </P><P><FONT size=3><FONT face=Calibri><B>ANGRY</B> (music with accelerated/threatening rhythm, husky voice uses higher notes shouting out anger)
scream</U> and shout it!" -2 BAD-):
[youtube]NEfbEwr3Uvc[/youtube]
HAPPY (music with higher notes, fast rhythm, voice uses higher notes, you can almost "hear/feel" smile in Michael's voice –JUMP FOR JOY-):
<o>[youtube]yURRmWtbTbo[/youtube]</o>
Now, take <o></o>
A) these basic feelings: sadness, anger and happiness<o></o>
+<o></o>
B) Michael's voice as you have always known from all previous songs, interviews, ... <o></o>
and listen to the following songs and try to answer to yourself how they make you feel:<o></o>
BREAKING NEWS
[youtube]_tiOdEoLbXo&feature=related[/youtube]<o></o>
MONSTER
[youtube]OQhHvXcmRlw[/youtube]<o></o>
KEEP YOUR HEAD UP
[youtube]rTqkN-ZILVI&feature=related[/youtube]<o></o>
A) The music will trigger or amplify some feelings (positive or negative, it is not important)<o></o>
B) Compared to all the familiar voices you have been listening to for years, or for some of us for decades, who do you hear unmistakably? Your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, Michael? <o></o>
Your brain will probably eliminate all the familiar voices you know and opt for Michael. But then, the question that I ask again: do you unmistakably hear Michael or not? Some of you will say yes, some of you will say no, some of you will need to re-listen to it. <o></o>
<o></o>
My sub-question is: do you need to re-listen to "She's out of my life", "2BAD" or "Don't stop till you get enough" in order to unmistakably determine the voice that you are familiar with?<o></o>
<o></o>
In other words, isn't it strange to have some serious Michael Jackson's fans doubting their idol's voice which has been so familiar to them until now? Only that split between the fans deserves to be taken into account seriously. No fan has interest in lying that he/she hears an unfamiliar voice. <o></o>
<o></o>
Thus we come to the much known fact and the situation in which we are: the vocals are questioned. The solution? Ask the forensic experts? What do they say?<o></o>
<o></o>
It's Michael. Case closed.<o></o>
<o></o>
Hold on, allow me to re-open the case. As a simple observer with basic knowledge in law I can easily accept the fact that all the legislation regarding the copyright, distribution, ownership, registration and what not, has been respected.<o></o>
<o></o>
Nevertheless as a language expert I cannot accept that the results of the analysis made by the forensic experts can be unmistakably accurate. Not because I don't trust them, but because first the results are subjective, and second, because they haven't analyzed the voice of the now famous potential impostor.<o></o>
Of course other feelings (mixed or not) can be triggered and/or amplified by listening to the music. But let's stick to these basic feelings and see how Michael feels when he sings and if you feel the same when you listen to his voice:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
[youtube]NEfbEwr3Uvc[/youtube]
HAPPY (music with higher notes, fast rhythm, voice uses higher notes, you can almost "hear/feel" smile in Michael's voice –JUMP FOR JOY-):
<o
>[youtube]yURRmWtbTbo[/youtube]</o>Now, take <o
></o>A) these basic feelings: sadness, anger and happiness<o
></o>+<o
></o>B) Michael's voice as you have always known from all previous songs, interviews, ... <o
></o>and listen to the following songs and try to answer to yourself how they make you feel:<o
></o>BREAKING NEWS
[youtube]_tiOdEoLbXo&feature=related[/youtube]<o
></o>MONSTER
[youtube]OQhHvXcmRlw[/youtube]<o
></o>KEEP YOUR HEAD UP
[youtube]rTqkN-ZILVI&feature=related[/youtube]<o
></o>A) The music will trigger or amplify some feelings (positive or negative, it is not important)<o
></o>B) Compared to all the familiar voices you have been listening to for years, or for some of us for decades, who do you hear unmistakably? Your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, Michael? <o
></o>Your brain will probably eliminate all the familiar voices you know and opt for Michael. But then, the question that I ask again: do you unmistakably hear Michael or not? Some of you will say yes, some of you will say no, some of you will need to re-listen to it. <o
></o><o
></o>My sub-question is: do you need to re-listen to "She's out of my life", "2BAD" or "Don't stop till you get enough" in order to unmistakably determine the voice that you are familiar with?<o
></o><o
></o>In other words, isn't it strange to have some serious Michael Jackson's fans doubting their idol's voice which has been so familiar to them until now? Only that split between the fans deserves to be taken into account seriously. No fan has interest in lying that he/she hears an unfamiliar voice. <o
></o><o
></o>Thus we come to the much known fact and the situation in which we are: the vocals are questioned. The solution? Ask the forensic experts? What do they say?<o
></o><o
></o>It's Michael. Case closed.<o
></o><o
></o>Hold on, allow me to re-open the case. As a simple observer with basic knowledge in law I can easily accept the fact that all the legislation regarding the copyright, distribution, ownership, registration and what not, has been respected.<o
></o><o
></o>Nevertheless as a language expert I cannot accept that the results of the analysis made by the forensic experts can be unmistakably accurate. Not because I don't trust them, but because first the results are subjective, and second, because they haven't analyzed the voice of the now famous potential impostor.<o
></o>
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
PART III QUESTIONING THE AUTHENCITY - FORENSIC EXPERTS - RELIABILITY
Last edited:
Oh geez, where the hell does one start?!?! :dropdead:
:lol:
Brilliant posts, of course....
What stood out for me the most, and thank you for bringing it up, is how MJ fans are often disregarded as experts regarding his voice. Why is this exactly? We are the ones who have listened to this man's voice day in and day out for years and years....We listen for pleasure, for comfort, for stress relief, or whatever...As a result of this, a connection, a relationship with his voice has been formed...That connection stays with you forever, I believe...As you said, his voice becomes an imprint in our minds and is often more recognizable than our own family members' voices....I think it's important to realize that we often 'study' his voice, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, therefore, can be seen as an informal expert, so to speak....
A fans' knowledge of Michael's voice should not be underestimated. It's more substantial than just HEARING a voice and interpreting it as Michael Jackson's voice. It's feeling it and recognizing the feelings that are extracted as a result of listening to his voice. His voice is very unique and carries a whole slew of trademarks that are instantly recognizable...When all of this is absent, what do you have? SOMEONE ELSE. It's simple. It gives me a headache to think about all the legalities and other issues surrounding this whole thing. If you take that all away, it becomes clear as day.
:lol:
Brilliant posts, of course....
What stood out for me the most, and thank you for bringing it up, is how MJ fans are often disregarded as experts regarding his voice. Why is this exactly? We are the ones who have listened to this man's voice day in and day out for years and years....We listen for pleasure, for comfort, for stress relief, or whatever...As a result of this, a connection, a relationship with his voice has been formed...That connection stays with you forever, I believe...As you said, his voice becomes an imprint in our minds and is often more recognizable than our own family members' voices....I think it's important to realize that we often 'study' his voice, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, therefore, can be seen as an informal expert, so to speak....
A fans' knowledge of Michael's voice should not be underestimated. It's more substantial than just HEARING a voice and interpreting it as Michael Jackson's voice. It's feeling it and recognizing the feelings that are extracted as a result of listening to his voice. His voice is very unique and carries a whole slew of trademarks that are instantly recognizable...When all of this is absent, what do you have? SOMEONE ELSE. It's simple. It gives me a headache to think about all the legalities and other issues surrounding this whole thing. If you take that all away, it becomes clear as day.
Last edited:
Aniram
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,191
- Points
- 48
It sounds to me the more I listen that they probably pitched up Jason's voice a little bit, especially on Monster. Maybe not, but he sounds slightly chipmunky to me like they did that to make him sound a little bit more like higher-pitched MJ.
Still, it only sounds like Jason Malachi to me, blatantly not Michael Jackson. That 2Bad video is completely epic by the way.
Still, it only sounds like Jason Malachi to me, blatantly not Michael Jackson. That 2Bad video is completely epic by the way.
mapi7723
Proud Member
:clapping: WOW Bumper! amazing post!! Thank u!!!
IMO, isnt Michael, I dont feel him in those songs, dunno how to say it i dont feel his magic!! instead I hear JM :mello:
IMO, isnt Michael, I dont feel him in those songs, dunno how to say it i dont feel his magic!! instead I hear JM :mello:
azsummergirl
Proud Member
that was a phenomenal post(s). and i also agree with arklove--fans shouldn't be disregarded.
I've said it before and i'll say it again: if i'm not qualified to do ANYTHING ELSE in the entire wide world, i AM qualified to listen to a song and tell you if it's michael jackson or not.
I've said it before and i'll say it again: if i'm not qualified to do ANYTHING ELSE in the entire wide world, i AM qualified to listen to a song and tell you if it's michael jackson or not.
Chamife
Proud Member
First of all, thanks for all the hard labour you put into this BUMPERSNIPPET. So very, very much appreciated!
I can get very emotional about all of this, t.b.h. I know Michael's voice from when I was young. I'm 44 yrs old now. I literally held my ears to the radio, because that's all I had in those days. Some tapes of him and one of the Destiny-tour performance in London. I knew every word, sigh, whisper, every interaction with the public. I only had my ears, so no distraction from footage. And I was young, about 11 yrs old. I absorbed his voice.
When Michael died I went on the net and I found the footage of that performance and to my surprise I still knew by heart his interaction and words he spoke with certain songs (that I loved and played over and over and over again). Surreal experience.
So if I understand it right, a forensic voice expert's analysis doesn't hold up in court? Similar to a lie-detector test?
I can get very emotional about all of this, t.b.h. I know Michael's voice from when I was young. I'm 44 yrs old now. I literally held my ears to the radio, because that's all I had in those days. Some tapes of him and one of the Destiny-tour performance in London. I knew every word, sigh, whisper, every interaction with the public. I only had my ears, so no distraction from footage. And I was young, about 11 yrs old. I absorbed his voice.
When Michael died I went on the net and I found the footage of that performance and to my surprise I still knew by heart his interaction and words he spoke with certain songs (that I loved and played over and over and over again). Surreal experience.
So if I understand it right, a forensic voice expert's analysis doesn't hold up in court? Similar to a lie-detector test?
Last edited:
love is magical
Proud Member
Wow... Bumpy is on fire. Excellent posts as always... :clapping:
I also agree that Michael had an uncanny ability to convey emotion. He's able to convince his listeners. His voice is just that unique.
Hey Arky, what a siggy! Oh mine... MJ such a babe... :heat:
I also agree that Michael had an uncanny ability to convey emotion. He's able to convince his listeners. His voice is just that unique.
Hey Arky, what a siggy! Oh mine... MJ such a babe... :heat:
claudiadoina
Proud Member
Thank you Bumper for helping me by force to improve my English knowledge.:winking2:
BTW the sound of those videos WOW, but sorry for not listening the last 3.:sorry:
BTW the sound of those videos WOW, but sorry for not listening the last 3.:sorry:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
-INTERLUDE-
PERSONAL OPINION ON THE REMARKS THAT MANY FANS HAVE EXPRESSED ABOUT "TOO BAD" PART IN THE SONG MONSTER
Before continuing with forensic experts and the limits of their accuracy regarding the results, I would like to draw attention to something that many fans have expressed but that has been completely ignored.
As a matter of fact, many fans have expressed that when they were listening to the song MONSTER, they were disgusted as soon as the "TOO BAD" chorus hit their ears. Why? What seems to be wrong with that part?
According to many fans the singer didn't put his soul in the song.
Here is an attempt of the explanation.
When Michael is angry, he expresses it very well by shouting as in the song "2BAD" or "SHOUT" or "PRIVACY" or even in the song "SHE'S OUT OF MY LIFE" when he sings "whether to live or die".
So, this style is what fans ears have been accustomed to.
If you listen to the song "MONSTER" and set aside the fact that the voice timbre doesn't sound 100% familiar, the singing style is also quite different. What is actually odd is that through the first verses we witness the singer's discontent and exasperation because of the papparazzi, yet when he sings "TOO BAD" part in that song, instead of charging his voice in even higher anger to show how the singer is really meaning what he is singing,as Michael always demonstrated it through other songs (as for example in Earth Song when he shouts "what about us!"), we witness an extremely weak, lifeless, and instead of angry almost a sad --which, when lyrics taken into account makes no sense-- voice singing "TOOO BAAAAAD".
This precisely triggers in some MJ's fans a feeling which they described as "singing without putting soul into it" which actually contradicts Michael's usual singing too. Such a melody is indeed quite unexpected after the first verses of anger against papparazzi.
PERSONAL OPINION ON THE REMARKS THAT MANY FANS HAVE EXPRESSED ABOUT "TOO BAD" PART IN THE SONG MONSTER
Before continuing with forensic experts and the limits of their accuracy regarding the results, I would like to draw attention to something that many fans have expressed but that has been completely ignored.
As a matter of fact, many fans have expressed that when they were listening to the song MONSTER, they were disgusted as soon as the "TOO BAD" chorus hit their ears. Why? What seems to be wrong with that part?
According to many fans the singer didn't put his soul in the song.
Here is an attempt of the explanation.
When Michael is angry, he expresses it very well by shouting as in the song "2BAD" or "SHOUT" or "PRIVACY" or even in the song "SHE'S OUT OF MY LIFE" when he sings "whether to live or die".
So, this style is what fans ears have been accustomed to.
If you listen to the song "MONSTER" and set aside the fact that the voice timbre doesn't sound 100% familiar, the singing style is also quite different. What is actually odd is that through the first verses we witness the singer's discontent and exasperation because of the papparazzi, yet when he sings "TOO BAD" part in that song, instead of charging his voice in even higher anger to show how the singer is really meaning what he is singing,as Michael always demonstrated it through other songs (as for example in Earth Song when he shouts "what about us!"), we witness an extremely weak, lifeless, and instead of angry almost a sad --which, when lyrics taken into account makes no sense-- voice singing "TOOO BAAAAAD".
This precisely triggers in some MJ's fans a feeling which they described as "singing without putting soul into it" which actually contradicts Michael's usual singing too. Such a melody is indeed quite unexpected after the first verses of anger against papparazzi.
Last edited:
love is magical
Proud Member
Even in ballad, Michael could sing much more powerfully. I was listening to The Girl Is Mine this morning. I notice Michael's husk actually never change.
When Michael sang the bridge:
But we both cannot have her
So, it's one or the other
And one day you'll discover
That she's my girl forever and ever
He's not shouting or screaming. But, the way he stressed those words... He breathed life into the song.
When Michael sang the bridge:
But we both cannot have her
So, it's one or the other
And one day you'll discover
That she's my girl forever and ever
He's not shouting or screaming. But, the way he stressed those words... He breathed life into the song.
I think I read from the Gearslutz forum that Michael had a way of singing with power and volume, but without forcing it...That bridge from TGIM is my favourite! I love the way he sings that!
As I've said before, when you strip all of the legalities, excuses, reasons for him sounding 'different'..it's simply just not him....I see it in that simple of a way...The soul is missing, the conviction in his voice, the feeling, the emotion...it's all just not there...Even when Michael wasn't warmed up, or just singing randomly, he just can't help but convey emotion...It was never something he needed to consciously do...It was natural for him....I'm not convinced the person singing on the Cascio tracks means what he's singing...He also sounds much, much younger than Michael...That much is obvious to me...
The first time I heard the Cascio songs, the feeling was missing for me. Period. And that worried me....Michael said himself that you have to 'feel the music'..He was right...
Chamife
Proud Member
reaction to -interlude-:
Exactly! It's sung like in sticking your tongue out and saying 'na na na na na'...not convincing at all. Empty, hollow songs, all of them.
Love is Magical: "I don't sing it if I don't mean it", lolol. But it's true, Michael meant every word when he sang.
Exactly! It's sung like in sticking your tongue out and saying 'na na na na na'...not convincing at all. Empty, hollow songs, all of them.
Love is Magical: "I don't sing it if I don't mean it", lolol. But it's true, Michael meant every word when he sang.