Latest on MJJC

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

thanks for your analysis i really appreciate it but all i can hear is someone else but mike...thanks for prooving it's not him...
 
Some people here are on mission to bash Teddy Riley. Ad hominem abuse is obviously only argument they have. :doh:
Anyone interested in truth.... go ask his daughters for truth! ;)

Thank you LEGEND for video.
 
Here is "Monster" (album tempo):

http://www.sendspace.com/file/auxn1t

It's originally more close the real voice. That's why it sounds also more close in the first place. It's pretty similar than 2000 Watts was. Sounds like more "intentionally" lowered. Probably Michael's idea.
 
Now I am 1000% sure it's Michael singing lead vocals in every song. I have been listening him such a long time.
 
Topflux it's Michael Jackson! :)
I appreciate your effort but unfortunately you'll get bashed for your work because Ad hominem abuse is maximum for some people!
Cheers, mate!
 
Kikuchiyo;3130784 said:
It's BIG LIE that Quincy said it's a fraud:
Here read what Quincy really said:

Us: Speaking of Michael Jackson, some of his old stuff is being released now as a new album. Thoughts?

Quincy Jones: I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet. Somebody called me up and asked me if it was Michael, and I said it sounds like Michael. But it's backed up by so many voices where I can't really dig down deep enough or I haven't really had time to dig deep enough to identify it. But no way it should be coming out. It should have all stayed in the vault.

Source: http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvm...t-at-kanye-new-michael-jackson-album-20101911
Click to expand...

I have the enterview with Friedman dowloaded in my computer and this is what he said:

RF: ROGER FRIEDMAN
QJ: QUINCY JONES

RF = did you heard new tracks?

QJ- i heard about them somebody asked me ... To identify them

RF= did you heard breaking news?

QJ- yeah they played that for me

RF= it´s sounds like michael

QJ- how can you tell though sounds stacked up?.

RF= but the melody is very... Michaelish

QJ- hi -himm

RF=.....

QJ- ... I can't tell there's too many stacks on. It could be i don't know.

RF= i think it is, there's been a lot of controversy

QJ- When you stack a voice that much it's hard to tell ....
Click to expand...


ROGER FRIEDMAN SAY "IT´S SOUND LIKE MICHAEL", NOT QUINCY. <_<
 
Guys, you seriously are confusing me. First Quincy said it, then not, then again.
 
I think Quincy is really among the "uncertain" group. Rather than one of the believers or the non-believers.
 
Kikuchiyo said:
Topflux it's Michael Jackson! :)
I appreciate your effort but unfortunately you'll get bashed for your work because Ad hominem abuse is maximum for some people!
Cheers, mate!
Click to expand...

I know, I know. And it's not a problem to me if they are altered some. Syllables are between one step thou from the original and mostly like 2/3 steps. The most important thing is it that it's Michael singing. I was just very sure in the beginning they are not Michael but when I examined all the syllables and stuff separately, you can make everyone of them sound exactly like him. And that they are very good songs actually. I'd like to have a cappellas to make great versions.. :) But I think we won't have them. :(
 
Kapital77;3130881 said:
I have the enterview with Friedman dowloaded in my computer and this is what he said:

[/B]

ROGER FRIEDMAN SAY "IT´S SOUND LIKE MICHAEL", NOT QUINCY. <_<
Click to expand...

He said "it could be"...
 
Kikuchiyo said:
It's BIG LIE that Quincy said it's a fraud:
Click to expand...

It is equally a big lie that Quincy Jones said it IS Michael (as Dominic Cascio had claimed). Dominic also admitted that another voice was used to fill in and add "accents" to the track because Michael couldn't complete them, but what has yet to be confirmed is how much of this other voice was added to complete the recordings or to what extent Michael's voice was post-processed.

There's been a lot of talk that the Cascio's have "working tapes" of Michael in their studio, I would love to see it. It would've made sense to show this footage when on Oprah rather than just a picture of the empty 'studio' they had when Michael was there. I still suspect that what we'd see is Michael discussing the track and perhaps laying down a few lines while testing it the lyrics as a favor to the Cascios, but nothing that he ever intended on releasing.
 
Kapital77;3130881 said:
I have the enterview with Friedman dowloaded in my computer and this is what he said:

[/B]

ROGER FRIEDMAN SAY "IT´S SOUND LIKE MICHAEL", NOT QUINCY. <_<
Click to expand...
Kapital77, user chocomarker wrote that Quincy Jones recently said that cascio songs are a fraud and tht's a LIE.

I provided source with Quincy Jones interview and you can read what he really said (http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvm...t-at-kanye-new-michael-jackson-album-20101911).
Of course Quincy Jones did another interview with Roger Friedman (see topic here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98363&highlight=friedman for video and ivy's transcript) and as you can see he NEVER said that Cascio songs are fraud so I don't understand why chocomarker deliberately spreading lies???
BTW I saw few people from this forum also spreading lies on other forums and TMZ articles etc. and I really don't understand that. :doh:


TSCM, your source please!? :smilerolleyes:
I ask because I know what Cascio really said. ;)

Anyway this is thread about Topflux' analysis and yet again this become another free-for-all topic. Shame!
 
Since BREAKING NEWS came out I have been perplex. When I heard MONSTER I was sure not to hear Michael Jackson singing.

Well, it is not because I couldn't recognize Michael that I stubbornly closed all the possibilities to accept the possibility that the voice or the timbre was in some way --that I cannot explain-- altered.

Contrary to this thread, I was not looking for the explanation of the high or low voice pitch, but of the voice timbre that is so far from Michael's natural one.

Well after looking for an explanation thoroughly, I think I might have found a probable beginning of an explanation.

I am not an expert in physics, but I remember when I had physics classes in the high school my teacher used to tell me that French radio stations broadcast in different stereo than the radios here in Belgium.

Indeed, there are several (two?) methods to broadcast stereo, and the weird thing is the both methods sound stereo but you clearly hear the difference. However, no matter which stereo you listen to, you will undoubtly recognize Michael's voice in both stereos, with the exception that one of the two gives impression to hear Michael in deeper voice, yet keeping his timbre.

Now, if Michael recorded those three tracks at Cascio studios and if they use different stereo technology maybe Michael's voice was already altered from that very moment. Add to that the fact that it was only a demo with different (lower) level of computer compression quality tried to be brought to the same level as other recordings and you obtain the result that we hear.

What made me re-think if it is Michael's voice or not is not only the track themselves, but the support on which I was listening to the tracks.

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.
 
Aha aha, so they are trying to program us to think it's Michael.
I believe in what my heart says, and it's not Michael..
 
Sorry but this proves NOTHING..I've tried to make the same thing, to play with the voice pitches and other stuff.. it still doesn't sound like MJ.
 
LoveMJackson said:
Sorry but this proves NOTHING..I've tried to make the same thing, to play with the voice pitches and other stuff.. it still doesn't sound like MJ.
Click to expand...

I said of course it doesn't sound exactly like Michael because it's altered for the album. Altering that much changes your voice more than just pitch-wise. It's because if you change the pitch technically every different pitch change sounds different comparing to your original voice and comparing to other changes. I also said, believe it or not, it's still Michael. :)
 
I don't understand why someone like Quincy Jones could be used as a credible source of hearing MJ's voice but not T. Riley - the man who actually worked with Michael within the past 2 decades. and heard the raw footage of the audio..

in a court case this would have been tossed out a long time ago.. notes by michael regarding songs, people hearing it raw, voice experts who identify peoples voices even when hidden on purpose with voice changers while threatening the president, you name it..

Case is closed in a court of law (it really would be).. But everyone is intitled to there beliefs.. the editing of the songs do take away from MJ's feel for sure.. but I do believe its Michaels voice, just not its original raw audio..
 
it would make no sense for sony to release three tracks with no michael in it...
so apart from what u think u hear or not, its nonsense that michael isnt singing in these songs...

i appreciate ur effort here, but people will turn this thread again in -ITS MICHAEL, ITS NOT MICHAEL- discussion..
 
After getting the album and listening to it in CD quality, I am sad to say that I cannot hear Michael on the Cascio tracks. They have nothing of his magic, at all.

Listen to the demos on This Is It then compare them to these manipulated, processed, fake-vibrato nonsense.

I don't believe Teddy with all his "the truth will come out" bullshit.

How on earth do they think they can cut and paste the King of Pop? Michael deserves far more respect. He would NEVER have released these songs.

That being said, the rest of the album is just great and respectfully handled.
 
It would be really nice if this was a thread about the logic, reason and scientific methodology behind finding out whether the voice on those tracks is Michael Jackson's.

By that, I mean people who clearly know what they are talking about within audio engineering are given a chance to explore using industry standard technology to put across their facts without people coming in side on and saying things like "I know it's him/not him in my heart". It means nothing, is subjective and illogical.

When we get down to specific syllables in his utterances and technologies that have been used to process the vocal track in post, that is the best chance of us actually finding out the truth.

It's counter productive to both sides having people who think they know what they are talking about because they have been a fan for 'X' years writing off one opinion without having properly looked into the audio engineering that the tracks could have gone through. :)
 
Sorry, but still my ears hear way too little Michael there :(

As much as I'd love to have all the unreleased songs Michael left behind...I'm better off without those that need so much filtering, altering, changing, autotuning (messing up) that one of the world's most recognizable voices becomes so weird many of his own fans are left puzzled whether it's him or not

There should be no need for this kind of conversation, proving this side or that side.. If some songs are in such an unfinished state they should need all kinds of tricks to be done, and the end result is so questionable, it's really difficult for me to understand why oh why they have to be released. -_-

What makes me suspicious about all this, is the fact that the seven other tracks - despite some of them sounding quite processed - sound like.. the one and only Michael Jackson!
 
I wish we could hear the original demos they had to work with!

I appreciate your effort, Topflux, and it does indeed sound a bit more like Michael but the vibrato still doesn't sound right to me somehow. Why couldn't they just leave these tracks out..

dangerous_88 said:
thanks for this.

God, I don't know what to believe. I am neither here nor there. :(

I am just really sad that people who believe so fanatically that this is Michael, are becoming insulting towards those who doubt...
Click to expand...
And vice versa.. :sigh:
 
Topflux said:
I said of course it doesn't sound exactly like Michael because it's altered for the album. Altering that much changes your voice more than just pitch-wise. It's because if you change the pitch technically every different pitch change sounds different comparing to your original voice and comparing to other changes. I also said, believe it or not, it's still Michael. :)
Click to expand...

Again, you proved nothing, absolutely nothing. on the contrary, its even clearer to me that its not MJ on these tracks. The vocals are way too different. On HT there are also effects on MJ voice but you still recognize his voice.
 
LoveMJackson said:
Again, you proved nothing, absolutely nothing. on the contrary, its even clearer to me that its not MJ on these tracks. The vocals are way too different. On HT there are also effects on MJ voice but you still recognize his voice.
Click to expand...

It's not the same if they ("Hollywood Tonight" vocals) just are close to the original pitch and then fx'ed. The more far away from the original pitch the altered syllable is it just sounds the more different from your natural voice. And that's what's happened with Cascio tracks. They have pitched notes from time to time with Melodyne, and that's not good. I don't know the reason and like I said there can be many reasons why it had to be altered in the first place.

That's why you can't use Melodyne for pitching really but only correcting the pitch. Pitching notes should be done separately analysing every note, for the better result. I would call it pitching if it's at least 1/4 step away from the original note even thou music goes with half-steps. Because i.e. if you just put one note 1/4 step higher and the next one 1/4 step lower it's just too much without more specific processing, and it doesn't sound so real.
 
Topflux
Don't bother defending your argument.. the audio you made will speak for itself and people will take away from it what they want.. anytime there is a debatable issue people wont stop till people believe what they do.. they are not out to be convinced.. Those nuteral will take the audio and make up what there idea is from it.. You did your part and let nature take its course.. thanks for the audios.. I took good things from it :) .. Its actually exactly what I was looking for just didnt have the equiptment to do it myself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top