Michael - The Great Album Debate

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.

Hey, glad you came here! :D
 
Speaking of Michael putting his heart and soul into a song just listen to him sing the adlibs for Earth Song at the world music awards in 1996. Mike took them to church there
 
Thanks! You've no idea how happy I am to be with likeminded..=D

Where can I find smilies here?

No need for smilies, use the monkeys like me:

Monkeys-Rule-The-World-9.jpg
 
Thanks! You've no idea how happy I am to be with likeminded..=D

Where can I find smilies here?

Oh, I think I know :lol: We all need a place to discuss this with likeminded people lol

Hmm....actually, I'm not sure...I just know them lol...I think if you're just simply replying, you can see the array of smilies on the side of your reply box :scratch:

Or, yes, express yourself with videos and pics....We do that a lot here...Especially Bumper lol
 
Speaking of Michael putting his heart and soul into a song just listen to him sing the adlibs for Earth Song at the world music awards in 1996. Mike took them to church there

Or this....My favourite..His ad libs here are on fire...

[YouTube]MgKintvIB5s&feature=fvst[/YouTube]
 
Or this....My favourite..His ad libs here are on fire...

[YouTube]MgKintvIB5s&feature=fvst[/YouTube]

I wish that MJ would have contined to do those ''Tell me what about it'' adlibs for every Earth Song performance
 
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...

Exactly! Michael had a way of projecting anger, urgency and aggresiveness without shouting or screaming.

He had excellent control of his voice.

Another example. Blue Gangster, when he sang "you've tricked me nine to five. left and you said crime. people are telling me you get another guy. i've been abuse, watch me light in fuse. you said you'll be my wife. nothing but big lie. don't know what i've done. everything you got. thing you've done to me come back to you." He's angry without shouting. The way he poured soul in a song is amazing.

When I watch American Idol, I see so many contestants trying to sound angry by screaming their lungs out. They just annoy me. To me, those are senseless screams without any emotion.

Thanks! You've no idea how happy I am to be with likeminded..=D

Where can I find smilies here?

welcome! :waving:

when you reply a post, you can click the "go advance" botton and you'll see a list of smilies...

or, you can remember the shortcuts. i use the following so often that i remember the shortcuts.

:naughty:
:heat:
:stars:
:lmao:
:wub:

Click on the smile and you will see the word, then just add ":" before and ":" after.
 
-INTERLUDE 2-

Why many fans thought directly of Malachi's "Let me let go" when they heard "Monster"?

The answer is quite simple actually. Set aside the similar voice timbre, the singing style is practically the same.

The first verses of Malachi's "Let me let go" sound just as angry as the first verses in "Monster". When you ecspect the voice to escalade that anger in "Let me let go", all of sudden you hear the chorus singing in almost a sad or nostalgic way "WHYYYYYY..." comparable to the sad/nostalgic "TOOO BAAAAAD" in the song "MONSTER".
 
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.

I'm not sure if that would have been problematic honestly. Copyright registration is nothing more than establishing an independent party proof against your work being stolen. By registering them as equally crediting credits to Michael Jackson hence Michael Jackson Estate Eddie had also gave power to the Estate over these songs. If Estate didn't agree with Eddie in regards to authenticity they could simply reject to give approval to any release.

real life example: recently a man came forward claiming to have a 50 year old recording of Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis. He authenticates it, experts say it's Presley and Lewis. So he takes it to the Elvis Estate who say it's Lewis but it's not Presley (which is quite funny IMO - what jerry lee lewis "faked" a recording with Elvis?). so is the guy in problematic situation because he claims to have Elvis recordings, nope. Is he at a powerful stage because he has Elvis recordings. Nope, Elvis's estate basically shut down him. What does he do? Release a 30 second snippet and ask Elvis fans to force Elvis Estate to accept and release that recording.



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.

I believe their statement said forensic musicologists? Let me check. yes it does. forensic musicologist are music experts (generally music professors) that are experienced in song , music comparisons, pitch etc. I don't think they would be language experts.

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.

I don't think that they are disregarded. I believe the whole argument was in regard to bias and subjectivity. For example I've been MJ fan for 23 years. I cannot claim to have expertise about music - as I have no education in the subject and I cannot claim to have trained ears - and by that I mean again musician's ears. Secondly it has been argued that my rationality and logical and legal approach has affected my opinion. As you can see if I was a witness in court and said "This is Michael Jackson singing" it would be nothing more than a personal opinion. Anyone who is a musician would be 10 times knowledgeable than me to give an opinion, any musician who worked extensively with Michael would be 10000 times more experienced than me to give an opinion, anyone who is not a fan would be more objective.

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.

as you know that I agree with you that almost all tests would have some sort of error in them. I do my surveys and my results comes with 95% + - 2 standard deviation. However I do not think that they are subjective. I mean they use pre- established methods making them quite objective.

It is important to mention that in some countries, forensic experts' results are regarded as reliable while in other countries although forensic experts' results can help, they cannot be taken for granted. In other words, they are neither 100% reliable nor accurate. What is the reason?
 
I'm not sure if that would have been problematic honestly. Copyright registration is nothing more than establishing an independent party proof against your work being stolen. By registering them as equally crediting credits to Michael Jackson hence Michael Jackson Estate Eddie had also gave power to the Estate over these songs. If Estate didn't agree with Eddie in regards to authenticity they could simply reject to give approval to any release.

real life example: recently a man came forward claiming to have a 50 year old recording of Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis. He authenticates it, experts say it's Presley and Lewis. So he takes it to the Elvis Estate who say it's Lewis but it's not Presley (which is quite funny IMO - what jerry lee lewis "faked" a recording with Elvis?). so is the guy in problematic situation because he claims to have Elvis recordings, nope. Is he at a powerful stage because he has Elvis recordings. Nope, Elvis's estate basically shut down him. What does he do? Release a 30 second snippet and ask Elvis fans to force Elvis Estate to accept and release that recording.

Anyway you turn it, to me so far the issue is not the legal registering. So, well, ok Eddie wouldn't have had problems, but legally he'd still be clean; So it doesn't change my statement about the fact that we can close the debate regarding the legal aspect at this point.





I believe their statement said forensic musicologists? Let me check. yes it does. forensic musicologist are music experts (generally music professors) that are experienced in song , music comparisons, pitch etc. I don't think they would be language experts.

Well, music or audio forensic, the results will still remain equally subjective. While they focus on music and the singing, they don't focus on the accent and the way some words are pronounced. What is their actual knowledge about the alleged impostor? None, since they haven't analyzed neither his voice nor his music. In my next post, I am inviting you to listen to MONSTER and LET ME LET GO, not only vocally speaking, but in terms of style. It is exactly the same style. No wonder about that.



I don't think that they are disregarded. I believe the whole argument was in regard to bias and subjectivity. For example I've been MJ fan for 23 years. I cannot claim to have expertise about music - as I have no education in the subject and I cannot claim to have trained ears - and by that I mean again musician's ears. Secondly it has been argued that my rationality and logical and legal approach has affected my opinion. As you can see if I was a witness in court and said "This is Michael Jackson singing" it would be nothing more than a personal opinion. Anyone who is a musician would be 10 times knowledgeable than me to give an opinion, any musician who worked extensively with Michael would be 10000 times more experienced than me to give an opinion, anyone who is not a fan would be more objective.

And I can assure you that you don't need any musicologist to tell you who or what you hear. A musicologist can analyze, interpret, dissecate, and what not, but it cannot tell what your brain hears, no way. Neither audio nor music forensics.

That was exactly my point when I was pointing out familiar voices. If your mother or father sang, whose voice you know very well, as well as their style, would you need a musicologist forensic to confirm it for you? I don't think so.

And in this case, being a legal witness or not doesn't change a thing to the fact what you hear or not.


as you know that I agree with you that almost all tests would have some sort of error in them. I do my surveys and my results comes with 95% + - 2 standard deviation. However I do not think that they are subjective. I mean they use pre- established methods making them quite objective.

Well, in my next part about results accuracy regarding forensics analysis I'll talk about the percentages.


this actually a catch 22 in my book. If we agree that the forensic experts cannot give reliable and accurate proof that it's Michael singing, it means that similarly they cannot say it's Jason singing either. Therefore we would need to accept that this cannot be proven either way and that everyone should form their own opinions.

Nobody is looking to prove that Jason is on those tracks. But, we can safely say that it isn't Michael's timbre, nor his accent, nor his singing habit. In order to be sure that it is Jason, they should analyze his songs first, and then have his confession that he did it. But of course when we have niether one or the other information, we can only rely on those ho have been analyzing Jason and who know his singing style.

So again, please listen to my snippets that I am going to upload. It is worthy. It will give you a perspective from another angle.
 
And now listen to this, supposed Michael (almost) plagiarizing Jason Malachi?

Is it a coincidence to have on exactly the same type of songs in terms of style, the same or a strikingly similar melody?

Listen, your ears don't lie to you:

http://soundcloud.com/bumper_snippet/plagiarizing


So where's the originality in the song MONSTER, someone point me out.
It's a shame that I can compare it to a Jason Malachi's song in terms of style without even focusing on the vocals.
 
Last edited:
and now listen to this, supposed michael (almost) plagiarizing jason malachi?

Is it a coincidence to have on exactly the same type of songs in terms of style, the same or a strikingly similar melody?

Listen, your ears don't lie to you:

http://soundcloud.com/bumper_snippet/plagiarizing

Wow!!!! Now THAT is something!

I'm still blown away at the comparison of Monster and Let Me Let Go...They are the SAME song....I just can't get over it...
 
Wow!!!! Now THAT is something!

I'm still blown away at the comparison of Monster and Let Me Let Go...They are the SAME song....I just can't get over it...

I can't get over how some people will keep insisting that it's MJ on the cascio tracks. Do they even listen to these audio clips?
 
You can easily point out their ignorance when they say Jason can't sing properly.
The comparison between Monster and Let me let go shows almost the same timbre, style and quality.
How can they then say the Monster-singer is superior? Well, because their brain is cheating them based on the belief it is indeed Michael Jackson.
 
I can't get over how some people will keep insisting that it's MJ on the cascio tracks. Do they even listen to these audio clips?

You can easily point out their ignorance when they say Jason can't sing properly.
The comparison between Monster and Let me let go shows almost the same timbre, style and quality.
How can they then say the Monster-singer is superior? Well, because their brain is cheating them based on the belief it is indeed Michael Jackson.

I dont think they truly listen, no.

are these posts really needed?

and honestly no I don't believe those to be same actually. To me still these two singers have strikingly different techniques and styles actually. I am one of the people that actually says cascio singer is superior due to the flow of the vocals. I'm yet to hear one full Jason Malachi song with such flow to it.
 
are these posts really needed?

and honestly no I don't believe those to be same actually. To me still these two singers have strikingly different techniques and styles actually.

So for you "let me let go" and "monster" are different styles and even the last snippet of melody I posted isn't the same or at least disturbingly similar?
 
So for you "let me let go" and "monster" are different styles and even the last snippet of melody I posted isn't the same or at least disturbingly similar?

in anger styles are different. I wrote this to TPIMaster before. listen to Monster. It has a flow to it. The singer more easily goes through the lines every line is perfectly tied to the next one which almost sounds like done in one breath which I call "flow". Then listen to Malachi comes in chopped stop go vocal technique. Expect one song chorus I'm yet to hear Malachi to have any flow in any of his songs. in the sadness even Malachi's overly lengthened vocals have that stop - go feeling to it.

as for plagiarizing one quite a lot of songs would sound similar to each other due to the use common chords. I'm not sure if I get your point there.
 
in anger styles are different. I wrote this to TPIMaster before. listen to Monster. It has a flow to it. The singer more easily goes through the lines every line is perfectly tied to the next one which almost sounds like done in one breath which I call "flow". Then listen to Malachi comes in chopped stop go vocal technique. Expect one song chorus I'm yet to hear Malachi to have any flow in any of his songs. in the sadness even Malachi's overly lengthened vocals have that stop - go feeling to it.

as for plagiarizing one quite a lot of songs would sound similar to each other due to the use common chords. I'm not sure if I get your point there.

I did not focus on the vocals at all. I was focusing on the pace of the music in general. The voice, as you said, can be processed and overporcessed, accelerated, and almost anything can be done to it in order to obtain the results that we hear.

But, when it comes to the pace and the style they're the same songs. The only difference between the two is the rap part in MONSTER.

The last snippet I posted, indicates that not only the style of the song is the same, but the very melody. If Michael really coined the song MONSTER, which I am not saying is bad, but would be probably the least original I've ever heard. And on top of that it gives impression that MJ would have gotten inspiration from Malachi, and THAT, I just cannot believe. The two songs are blatantly constructed on the same idea. The melody just reinforces the idea that MJ has little to do with the composition. It sounds Michaelish, but overall, it sounds Malachi's, whose songs are Michaelish.
 
in anger styles are different. I wrote this to TPIMaster before. listen to Monster. It has a flow to it. The singer more easily goes through the lines every line is perfectly tied to the next one which almost sounds like done in one breath which I call "flow". Then listen to Malachi comes in chopped stop go vocal technique. Expect one song chorus I'm yet to hear Malachi to have any flow in any of his songs. in the sadness even Malachi's overly lengthened vocals have that stop - go feeling to it.

as for plagiarizing one quite a lot of songs would sound similar to each other due to the use common chords. I'm not sure if I get your point there.


This seems to be the last survivor - the flow.
Well, you can tell at Monster that lines are pasted together. This is very common everywhere. I'm sure in Michaels past songs as well. This could easily be done with an proper Malachi acapella. Is there a Monster Instrumental or Acapella? I would love to build a "chopped stop go vocal technique" version.

If not, I'll do a Breaking news CSGVT version to show, that this kind of flow is really not a strong argument.

What about the timbre?
 
This could easily be done with an proper Malachi acapella. Is there a Monster Instrumental or Acapella? I would love to build a "chopped stop go vocal technique" version.

actually you need to take a Malachi chopped stop go acapella and give it the flow I'm talking about. That would be interesting. and that would be the counter argument to mine as I said as far as I heard malachi doesn't have the flow normally - hence have an inferior technique and style and you claim it could be a line pasted together thing.

any audio can be turned into a stop go vocal , stutter effect is the maximum of such stop go vocals. so I know it's possible and I don't need to see that. What I need to see is that an average Jason Malachi vocal can be turned into something better in regards to the "flow" in this instance.
 
Bumper, incredible comparisons. It's exactly the same.

Ivy, this probably has been said before (the flow is discussed before, from what I learned) but to me it's new, so I want to ask you if you feel there's also no flow in some parts of Jason Malachi's Runner Up? Don't you think it's because Monster is just an up-tempo song and it's nearly impossible to sing it 'stop-go'?

*think I have a smilie problem here...*grump*. Can't do without smilies as furreigner.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top