Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
MJTKOP-NYTRAM
Proud Member
If Michael was here, these awful songs were never released, and maybe they didn't even existed!
because the experts used in this case didn't give opinion based on listening, they run scientific tests on the vocals.
love is magical
Proud Member
But, there is no such thing called vocalprint, no? I'm just wondering what scientific tests they could do to indentify people's voice?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
There is no such thing.
How do you run a scientific test with vocals? It's extremely subjective and the slightest alteration could lead to misinterpretation, especially if all-public (including the specialists) are mislead to observe what they "should" observe.
Where is the undeniable proof of their "scientific" findings? Especially when their subjective theory is highly questioned by our own theory. Let's bear in mind that when it comes to MJ's voice we're not amateurs, but connaisseurs.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Not instead, but along.
didn't they say waveform analysis?
there's a common voice recognition program that many programmers write (my college boyfriend was a computer programmer). What the program would require is 10 samples of a person saying a word (such as Hello) - because voice of people actually changes not constant so it would use 10 previous recordings to create an "average" voice and a range" And then when you run the program and say "hello" to the mic it would try to match the voice to the average voice and if it matched it would write "hello ivy" to the screen. it's the very basic voice recognition.
with same logic and my understanding they would have gotten samples of Michael's previously released songs / acapellas and form a sample from them as a representative of Michael's voice (that included his range) and then run the comparison of current vocals to this sample and they would get a match percentage. Like I said before in statistics 95% certainty is the generally accepted norm.
there's such a thing. I believe even audacity and melodyne? has extensions in them that can do basic comparison the samples and say that if they match or not. Isn't that what Pentum is doing comparing the adlibs and confirming where they are coming from?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Science is basically observation that is backed by the repetitionof the phenomenon. How do you do that with the vocals on the Cascio tracks when you can use the same criteria and conclude that the voice is JM's?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
That's absolutely not an exact science. You don't observe anything else, but the waves. Indeed, if you alter the voice, you'll observe different waves. Conclusion = Subjective.
That technology is completely imperfect. People who are able to imitate other people's voice could fool such computerized programs, as much as that same computer program could be unable to recognize your voice when you catch cold.
In this case, not a single audio forensic can be more reliable than an average MJ's fan who IS extremely familiar with MJ's voice, that's the reason number one. And the reason number two, if the voice has been altered to such an extent, no musicologist or audiologist can confirm 100% anything, especially if those musicologists and/or audiologists aren't as familiar with MJ's voice as we are.
The statistics go both ways. If an audiologist is able to find out whose voice is on the recordings, the person who is familiar with the voice is able to do it naturally. Tests have been done with audiologists/musicologists in one room, and non-experts in another. The statistics showed that both, audiologists and people who were familiar with the voice ere right in almost all cases.
In this case we have a much bigger problem and no exact science can measure it.
okay I called my ex and this is just a fyi
he says C++ has a waveform comparison capability and that matlab has the capabilities of voice recognition, voice comparison, timbre comparison , identifying different voices etc (smt called Voice toolbox). that's what he knows, remember he's a programmer not a music expert.
bumper I'll post something for you in a little while. I have to check a law journal first.
he says C++ has a waveform comparison capability and that matlab has the capabilities of voice recognition, voice comparison, timbre comparison , identifying different voices etc (smt called Voice toolbox). that's what he knows, remember he's a programmer not a music expert.
bumper I'll post something for you in a little while. I have to check a law journal first.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I still have to post the remaining part about audio forensics written by the audio forensics.
You seem to give too much credit to the computer programs and forensics, but these latter themselves claim that their results cannot be 100% neither accurate nor more reliable than people familiar with the voice in question?
Likewise, you seem not to acknowledge that an imitator can fool the computer program. And finally, as I said, your voice could be easily unrecognizable by any computer program if it is altered either naturally or in thse studio.
And let's not forget that the computer programs highly depend on the data they have. If in their database they have MJ's timbre, they'll probably match it with MJ's voice. But if in their database JM's timbre is either completely absent or never compared to JM's voice, how do you expect from the computer to match the voice with JM's one at all then? The so called scientific waveform analysis was biased and subjective from the very beginning.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
But Ivy, I didn't say that there's no such thing as studying, observing, comparing, analyzing and even matching the waveforms. Of course there is such a thing.
What I was saying is that there is no such thing as SCIENTIFIC observation. It is not conclusive and is highly subjective because the voice is subjected to extreme variation by the computer programs and processing. So automatically it becomes all but scientific, even if there is a strong will to do it as scientifically as possible, it still doesn't make it scientific at all actually.
In some cases some fingerprints, which are much more tangible than a voice, can be extremely similar and even fool the computerized programs. Voice is much more malleable and easier to alter, adapt, imitate, etc than fingerprints.
So does voice recognition exist? Yes
Does it recognize the same voice? Yes
But does it recognize different people with the same voice? No!
love is magical
Proud Member
To me, the more convincing evidence is not waveform analysis or any so-called scientific test. More convincing evidence is mutiple tangible supports such as worktapes, video footage and handwritten notes that can corrobate with each others. It's that simple.
If they show a photo of Michael singing in the studio, one can discredit it.
If they show a hand written note, one can still discredit it.
If they show a video of Michael singing the songs, one can have doubts but can't really discredit it.
If they show a work tapes with multiple takes and Michael's instruction, how can one discredit it?
If they show all of the above, I bet even the most stubborn doubters will admit they are wrong.
I wonder if any of the above exists. If so, were they given to Sony and the Estate at one point? If they were, why the Estate felt the need to engage musicologists to run the tests? Becasue of due diligence? Aren't all of the above evidence convincing enough?
If they show a photo of Michael singing in the studio, one can discredit it.
If they show a hand written note, one can still discredit it.
If they show a video of Michael singing the songs, one can have doubts but can't really discredit it.
If they show a work tapes with multiple takes and Michael's instruction, how can one discredit it?
If they show all of the above, I bet even the most stubborn doubters will admit they are wrong.
I wonder if any of the above exists. If so, were they given to Sony and the Estate at one point? If they were, why the Estate felt the need to engage musicologists to run the tests? Becasue of due diligence? Aren't all of the above evidence convincing enough?
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
If such a video of MJ exist, singing any Casico song then i would consider it proof he sang on the song. BUT....since no video has surfaced. What proof do we hav...something $ony says?
I also hear that the Casico songs are incomplete, i hear Monster was sped up, and James Porte also has vocals in the songs....if a video would exist for lets say: Monster. The Monster MJ sings would be slower than the Monster the Estate mixed. If a video came out of Monster, we can also hear how much they mixed, and altered MJ's voice and the song itself.
claudiadoina
Proud Member
For those who still claim that Michael's voice has changed drasticly over the years, watch this video and listen from 4:30 on.:sad2:
BTW I stole this beautiful video from MJJLaugh.
BTW I stole this beautiful video from MJJLaugh.
so are we having a disagreement about the word "scientific"?
Scientific is basically meaning a systematic approach that uses the predetermined methods and predetermined tests.
by this definition those comparisons would be scientific.
I think what you have an issue is with accuracy. Correct?
Let me explain it further
DNA test is seen as one of the most reliable tests out there. Fingerprinting is more like 7 point match , 12 point match which is known to give false match results.
So they are both scientific tests with one having more accuracy then the other.
So those computerized comparisons might not be perfect and have error chance but it doesn't mean that they aren't scientific or objective.
will return to statistics in a little bit.
I don't think this is the case. For example US used such tests to authenticate audio messages from Osama Bin Laden , Saddam Hussein before and all those tests aims to authenticate such voices and obviously it would aim to differentiate it from a sound alike and not from a distant voice. So I again expect them to be able to differentiate between the voices - even though they might not be perfect.
Now let's talk some statistics
If we are trying to make a determination between 2 choices (Michael - not Michael) chance is 50% - meaning that if I asked my 3 year old niece to give her opinion without knowing anything she has the 50% chance to give the correct answer and 50% chance the wrong answer
so we can conclude that any test should have given more than 50% correct answer.
Nothing is perfect in such testing every test would have an error rate so
- 99% confidence level would be perfect
- 95 % would be the the most common "best" match
- 80 % would be okay
- 60% would be weak
- and anything around / below 50% it's better to just guess.
now we need to add probability into the mix. Let's assume a really weak test like Bumper portrays actually let's go with guess 50%. You know what that means 12 Cascio songs if they ran through the test 6 of them will come as Michael and 6 of them would come up as not Michael. and guess what any researcher would see that the test wasn't testing what it's supposed to test.
so I think the tests ability to differentiate between the voices and the accuracy of the outcome will be better than you portray.
Second post to follow about the article I mentioned.
This is actually something I have been thinking about since reading PG's post on Maxjax about mother's not recognizing their babies cry. After Bumper's posts of "our hearing better determinant than experts/ tests" I had to go back and post this information.
This comes from Hastings Law Journal and it's about speaker identification. The relevant part is that it quotes a lot of research about humans ability (or inability) to recognize voices. This is the summary
1. Voice recognition software is not as reliable as DNA or finger print analysis but it's improving "sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques, and the ability of acoustic engineers to decompose the human voice into a host of different components have led to enormous improvement in voice recognition technology". So like I said in the last post it's not perfect but it's improving.
2. Some people are better at identifying voices then others. Nobody knows why but musical ability and memory seems to be a factor.
---- So musicians will generally be better at identification. so musicians that worked with Michael would have a better accuracy.
3. Familiarity with the voice is important. Research shows people can identify their family members with 89% accuracy but they can only identify their friends / co workers / people they have occasional contact by only 66% accuracy.
4. Number of times a person is exposed to the voice is more important then the length of the time they are exposed to the voice. Research shows that hearing a voice for 20 seconds for 3 times is far better than hearing a voice for once for 60 seconds.
---- So both of the above shows that more exposure to the voice is the most important thing. so not necessarily the long term fans will be better judges, the people who listen/ exposed to the voice the most times will be better.
---- Although being family strengthens Jacksons family claims, how often they were exposed to Michael's voice also becomes important. For example in her book Latoya says between 1992 - 2009 she didn't talk to Michael for 14 years and she only talked to him 6 or so times. So in this reality most of the fans would be better in identifying Michael's voice than Latoya.
5. The ability to identify a voice also deteriorates sharply over time if the person is no longer exposed to the voice frequently. Research shows that when asked to pick up a voice among 5 voices , people has 83% accuracy the next day, 51% accuracy 3 weeks later and 13% accuracy after 5 months.
---- this with the above points shows that not only familiarity in Michael's voice but familiarity in Jason's voice is needed. If you aren't exposed to Jason's voice before and frequently or if you didn't listen to him for some time then your ability to distinguish his voice is going down sharply.
6. Now sound- alikes. Bumper is right. They are tricky. Research shows that voices of brothers are confusing. In a research done in Sweden when asked to pick Carl Bildt voice (prime minister) but actually played an impersonator voice people almost always wrongly identified the impersonator as Carl Bildt.
---- This is a two way street in our argument. It shows that Malachi can be mistaken for Michael and Micheal can be mistaken for Malachi so any one of us can be wrong in what we think we hear. It shows us that we are actually trying for the hardest differentiation in this instance.
7. Disguise of a voice (in our case processing) is also problematic. They ask people to simply whisper and recognition accuracy goes down a lot. Distortion makes it even worse in regards to accuracy.
---- so any type of processing present on Cascio and Malachi songs is making our determinations even less accurate. Raw acapella vocals are needed to reduce this disguise / distortion effect.
8. Also multiple case histories show that being confident in a voice identification doesn't necessarily mean that the person is correct. Several cases are cited where people were convicted based on mainly a very confident witness voice identification but later proven innocent with DNA evidence and such. In short there's no correlation between a person's confidence in what he heard and the accuracy of his identification.
Finally let's discuss the comparisons from a legal perspective
"it is no longer permissible for police officers to invite the victim of a crime to the police station, bring her within earshot of a defendant who is asked to say a few words, and then ask the victim if the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime"
Why?
Because it's leading and proven to cause false identification.
Similarly any comparison video or any person you asked to compare Jason Malachi vocals to Michael's wouldn't hold in court.
This comes from Hastings Law Journal and it's about speaker identification. The relevant part is that it quotes a lot of research about humans ability (or inability) to recognize voices. This is the summary
1. Voice recognition software is not as reliable as DNA or finger print analysis but it's improving "sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques, and the ability of acoustic engineers to decompose the human voice into a host of different components have led to enormous improvement in voice recognition technology". So like I said in the last post it's not perfect but it's improving.
2. Some people are better at identifying voices then others. Nobody knows why but musical ability and memory seems to be a factor.
---- So musicians will generally be better at identification. so musicians that worked with Michael would have a better accuracy.
3. Familiarity with the voice is important. Research shows people can identify their family members with 89% accuracy but they can only identify their friends / co workers / people they have occasional contact by only 66% accuracy.
4. Number of times a person is exposed to the voice is more important then the length of the time they are exposed to the voice. Research shows that hearing a voice for 20 seconds for 3 times is far better than hearing a voice for once for 60 seconds.
---- So both of the above shows that more exposure to the voice is the most important thing. so not necessarily the long term fans will be better judges, the people who listen/ exposed to the voice the most times will be better.
---- Although being family strengthens Jacksons family claims, how often they were exposed to Michael's voice also becomes important. For example in her book Latoya says between 1992 - 2009 she didn't talk to Michael for 14 years and she only talked to him 6 or so times. So in this reality most of the fans would be better in identifying Michael's voice than Latoya.
5. The ability to identify a voice also deteriorates sharply over time if the person is no longer exposed to the voice frequently. Research shows that when asked to pick up a voice among 5 voices , people has 83% accuracy the next day, 51% accuracy 3 weeks later and 13% accuracy after 5 months.
---- this with the above points shows that not only familiarity in Michael's voice but familiarity in Jason's voice is needed. If you aren't exposed to Jason's voice before and frequently or if you didn't listen to him for some time then your ability to distinguish his voice is going down sharply.
6. Now sound- alikes. Bumper is right. They are tricky. Research shows that voices of brothers are confusing. In a research done in Sweden when asked to pick Carl Bildt voice (prime minister) but actually played an impersonator voice people almost always wrongly identified the impersonator as Carl Bildt.
---- This is a two way street in our argument. It shows that Malachi can be mistaken for Michael and Micheal can be mistaken for Malachi so any one of us can be wrong in what we think we hear. It shows us that we are actually trying for the hardest differentiation in this instance.
7. Disguise of a voice (in our case processing) is also problematic. They ask people to simply whisper and recognition accuracy goes down a lot. Distortion makes it even worse in regards to accuracy.
---- so any type of processing present on Cascio and Malachi songs is making our determinations even less accurate. Raw acapella vocals are needed to reduce this disguise / distortion effect.
8. Also multiple case histories show that being confident in a voice identification doesn't necessarily mean that the person is correct. Several cases are cited where people were convicted based on mainly a very confident witness voice identification but later proven innocent with DNA evidence and such. In short there's no correlation between a person's confidence in what he heard and the accuracy of his identification.
Finally let's discuss the comparisons from a legal perspective
"it is no longer permissible for police officers to invite the victim of a crime to the police station, bring her within earshot of a defendant who is asked to say a few words, and then ask the victim if the defendant was the perpetrator of the crime"
Why?
Because it's leading and proven to cause false identification.
Similarly any comparison video or any person you asked to compare Jason Malachi vocals to Michael's wouldn't hold in court.
Kapital77
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 772
- Points
- 18
We don´t mind if the comparisons don´t hold on court and we don´t know what the Jackson family will do.
I don´t mind what pompous or other said, i am tired of read the same things day by day and i am tired of those people that never put themselves on the side of the people who thinks it´s not MJ.
Ivy, if you are legal, put one day on our skin... please, only for one day don´t be a Cascio advocate and try to find the way to probe it´s not MJ.
We only know that he never sung those songs. I don´t mind legal excuses, etc... etc... etc...
I only know that the Cascio tracks were sung by Mister C. and that´s a thing that nobody will change... NEVER.
I don´t mind what pompous or other said, i am tired of read the same things day by day and i am tired of those people that never put themselves on the side of the people who thinks it´s not MJ.
Ivy, if you are legal, put one day on our skin... please, only for one day don´t be a Cascio advocate and try to find the way to probe it´s not MJ.
We only know that he never sung those songs. I don´t mind legal excuses, etc... etc... etc...
I only know that the Cascio tracks were sung by Mister C. and that´s a thing that nobody will change... NEVER.
Last edited:
Kapital77;3416806 said:
they won't be reliable in regards to voice recognition if their interaction with Michael was limited.
I do emphasize with you but you need to understand that in this instance people hear different things so they wouldn't agree with you. I wish that you wouldn't beat yourself so much about it and simply accept that there are people that thinks differently.
I did probe it. I listen to comparisons. I still think it's MJ. I can't change what I hear because you want me to. No one can.
and that's just your opinion. It's not a fact.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
The approach is as scientific as possible, but it cannot be considered as scientific.
When you can weigh, measure, contain and reproduce a phenomenon then you can safely say it is a scientific approach.
In our case, when you take the altered voice and study it, all you study is the altered voice. There is no scientific way to prove that this altered voice is more Michael Jackson's than someone else's. In other words, scientifically speaking, it is not Michael Jackson's voice unless you can revert the processing and make it sound as all the voice we all know.
If you use the argument that the altered voice is due to the recording environment, thus impossible to make it sound as a usual voice, then I can say, ok, take the THRILLER 25 session where some verses were apparently recorded at the Angeliskon studio and make it sound as the voice on the Cascio tracks. Same recording environment, same processing, should give same results.
They both are tangible and can be safely compared, unlike the altered voice.
If I modify the DNA via microbioprocessing or deliberately modify fingerprints or traces of fingerprints thanks to microtechnology or nanotechnology, I can no longer claim to be as accurate as when I had the unaltered DNA and fingerprints.
So, please, let's not lose sight of the fact that the voice might have been altered (or not --which obviously would pose a bigger problem as to relating it to MJ's).
Their objectivity depends on the encoded data. If there is no trace of JM's encoded data in the computerized software, the software couldn't possibly compare it to something that is absent from his data --JM's voice.
Comparing MJ's voice to a similar voice cannot be conclusive. The voice still sounds similar to MJ's and not the same.
Well, that's what I have been saying -- the voice authentification is not pefect. You can always fool people, even the experts, and they admit it.
But have you heard Teddy and Eddie how lightly they spoke about it? "It's Michael". I mean, what?! how? when? where? why?... But no coherent answer surfaced. A pvc, a shower? I mean, even if Michael had been drunk and had sung in a huge wine keg we'd immediately gut-recognize him and even giggle about it. But here, we clearly are dealing with something unprecedent. Every Cascio song contains past MJ's songs and that a bit alarming to my ears.
Water = Heaven can wait
Monster = 2Bad
Breaking News = You rock my world
Stay = You are not alone
Keep your head up = Earth song
Soldier boy = They don't care about us
Set aside the altered voice, the rehashed and copypasted materials from past songs onto the Cascio songs is a bit too much. Enough to become suspicious.
It is however true that Another Day contains some pasted material, as well as Behind the mask. To be honest I could understand that some additional ad-libs were added to Another Day as they were lacking, but when I heard Behind the mask's crowd from Dangerous tour, I just couldn't understand why they pasted that at all, it was completely unnecessary and unrelated.
In case of the Cascio songs, I have impression that the copy pasted material is absolutely related and that it served to fabricate the "new" songs. That's how they sound - artificially fabricated. Just listen to the word "victim" in the vocals on "Soldier Boy". It sounds as if it hasn't been processed yet and that it was blatantly copy-pasted from another recording session.
False. It depends on the choice you offer. If you present two different types of voices, for example Michael vs Sponge Bob, you will not have 50% chance of the wrong answer at all.
If you present a choice between two similar voices, then yes, there's a 50% chance that people could give you the answer if they don't know any of the voices.
Absolutely not. I strongly doubt, and many will probably agree, that Sponge Bob vs MJ would give different results from MJ vs JM due to the similarity of the latter.
so it cannot be taken as a serious scientific proof. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, that's scientifically provable. But the Cascio voice being made of MJ's voice, is scientifically impossible to prove.
The lacking factor here is that we are not guessing. We are putting side aside two voices: JM's and Cascio's and it sounds identical. It's not a guess, it is a comparison. Yet, impossible to find an MJ's vs Cascio comparison.
Not at all. This is where I am goig to use my Sponge Bob. If I give you 12 songs sung by Sponge Bob vs MJ, and ask you to guess, I doubt you would give a 50% chance answer, even if you don't know the voices. I doubt that your brain wouldn't from the very beginning make the difference between MJ's and Sponge Bob's voice. So, you'd guess with 100% accuracy that all 12 songs are sung by Sponge Bob. That's simply natural voice recognition.
Well, the way you presented it in your example that I just countered, there's no need to be a scientist to see that.
You are omitting the altered voice factor which is impossible to revert back. So how accurate can it be anyway, especially if it is compared only to Michael's voice and not JM's voice.
Unfortunately, since PG banned me for merely posting an innocent joke on his website, I couldn't possibly comment on his mother-baby argument which is completely out of scope and has nothing to do with the issue we are dealing with. Here is what I have to say to PG argument:
-First of all Michael's voice isn't as simple as a baby's voice.
-Second, a baby's voice is easier to imitate beacuse of its simplicity.
-Third, if a voice is easier to imitate, there is a bigger chance to have more soundalikes (other babies).
-Fourth, it is not the mother that does not recognize her baby's voice, that's completely false! The issue is that a mother (or a father by the way) does recognize her baby's voice, but has a hard time telling if it is her baby's or someone else's baby's, due to the simplicity in the voice factor.
Now let's get serious and talk about a more complex voice which we are dealing with - Michael Jackson's vs Cascio's.
I stand by that. In some cases some people can naturally better determine what they hear than what the experts hear. You can compare this actually to a visit to your doctor. You perfectly well know what seems to be the problem and the doctor tells you the opposite. You listen to the doctor's piece of advice and realize that your state gets worse. When you come back to see the doctor again, finally he tells you that your problem is exactly what you had been suspicious about in the first place.
I'll comment later on your neither-melting-pot-nor-salad-bowl-but-Irish-stew post
Billyjeanplxiv
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,564
- Points
- 48
Haha....um honestly i think im struggling to follow along will all the posts that have been made. I just dont see why Sony wont release "So-called" Michael's acappella on the Casico songs? wouldnt that prove something more? Unless there is some kind of cover up, i dont see why they dont come out and say: Heres what we have/know. Know you can re-decide for yourselfs....
Kapital77
Proud Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 772
- Points
- 18
ivy;3417012 said:
I don´t think that the children of Michael had a limited intereaction with his work.
By the way, Jacksons worked with Michael during the most part of his life. (Including 30th aniversary).
ivy;3417012 said:
Yeah, i admit that there are people that hear other things. Like there are many people who thinks "mamacita" and "let me let go" were sung by MJ.
But i can´t accept is that a few can´t see what audio comparisons showed. It´s the same voice.
ivy;3417012 said:
Ok, no problem. I apreciate that you are true with yourself and you are telling me that you believe it´s MJ. Others will never said it because they are afraid to the future.
ivy;3417012 said:
Well, yeah, it´s true, it´s only my opinion.... but based on audio comparisons that are impossible to avoid.
By the way, i never hated you, because you trully respect the other side. There are other (i will not say names) that are very disrespectful with their signatures or coments.
Last edited:
yeah I had typed up quite response myself as well and it made me mad. I'll wait to calm my anger (of losing the post) try to rewrite it tomorrow. or perhaps sunday. I'm getting emotional as saturday coming close.
I didn't hit post. it kinda refreshed the page on me, does that make sense? and puff it all was gone.
Hi again guys, i return here to say !!! HELLO !!!.
hi kapital
Frankyboy5
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,386
- Points
- 48
Well, I also find some strong similarities between the Cascio tracks to Jason's songs, not just vocally.
Monster especially strikes out as that orchestral "hit" instrument is similar to Room 2 Breathe. Stay has a strong similarity to Biggerman. However, Heaven Can Wait has background vocals that sound a bit like James Porte and Jason's backing vocalist, but you can hear MJ as well.
I know some fans have questioned Best of Joy and Hollywood Tonight, but the album version of HT indeed has vocal processing done to it, and for the music video they showed us the unprocessed vocals. For HT, we have a lot of proof that it is MJ because there are demos etc.
Even if a video was released out, the only thing I would believe is that MJ WROTE the song but I would still be in question about the vocals.
As for Black Widow; this snippet does sound a lot like MJ, but I somehow think "girl" is a bit off (more like "gerrl" as Jason does). Some fans say it's sampled from Superfly Sister but I don't think so. When Jason does the ad-lib voice, it's harder to tell if it's him or MJ; that's actually the only voice he is decent in doing (like in Monster, "why you stalkin me, why you haun-in me" but the pronunciation gives it away).
Monster especially strikes out as that orchestral "hit" instrument is similar to Room 2 Breathe. Stay has a strong similarity to Biggerman. However, Heaven Can Wait has background vocals that sound a bit like James Porte and Jason's backing vocalist, but you can hear MJ as well.
I know some fans have questioned Best of Joy and Hollywood Tonight, but the album version of HT indeed has vocal processing done to it, and for the music video they showed us the unprocessed vocals. For HT, we have a lot of proof that it is MJ because there are demos etc.
Even if a video was released out, the only thing I would believe is that MJ WROTE the song but I would still be in question about the vocals.
As for Black Widow; this snippet does sound a lot like MJ, but I somehow think "girl" is a bit off (more like "gerrl" as Jason does). Some fans say it's sampled from Superfly Sister but I don't think so. When Jason does the ad-lib voice, it's harder to tell if it's him or MJ; that's actually the only voice he is decent in doing (like in Monster, "why you stalkin me, why you haun-in me" but the pronunciation gives it away).