Latest on MJJC

This is how Michael would sound had his voice matured normally

This is actually a pretty interesting discussion.

Just like everyone else here, I LOVE Michael's voice, but have long wondered what happened to it when he grew up.
Like the OP, I'm also not referring to the range, but rather to his timbre or voice color if you will.
Listen to early J5 songs, Michael sounded like a true "boss" he had command of those songs and he sounded like a little boy with a men's man quality to his voice, real gravitas to his voice.

When Michael grew up he started preferring that "airier, silkier, just above a whisper" tone, which made him sound like an eternal Teenager.
Even when Michael let it rip and get down as an adult, his voice never sounded "big" or "in command". He would yell, use screams, and apply distortion and grit to his "Rock" vocals, but it never sounded "big"

Also folks, you have to understand, Michael sang the way he did, with that tone by stylistic choice, that is not the way his voice sounded naturally.
However, he did use that altered voice so much that eventually it did become his natural voice.
He probably could have found his true voice had he wanted to, but I don't think he ever felt comfortable sounding like a real man, and I don't mean that as an insult.
I love MJ's voice just the way it is, but I do wonder what he would have sounded like as an adult with his true voice.
 
Rated_R_Ron said:
This is actually a pretty interesting discussion.

Just like everyone else here, I LOVE Michael's voice, but have long wondered what happened to it when he grew up.
Like the OP, I'm also not referring to the range, but rather to his timbre or voice color if you will.
Listen to early J5 songs, Michael sounded like a true "boss" he had command of those songs and he sounded like a little boy with a men's man quality to his voice, real gravitas to his voice.

When Michael grew up he started preferring that "airier, silkier, just above a whisper" tone, which made him sound like an eternal Teenager.
Even when Michael let it rip and get down as an adult, his voice never sounded "big" or "in command". He would yell, use screams, and apply distortion and grit to his "Rock" vocals, but it never sounded "big"

Also folks, you have to understand, Michael sang the way he did, with that tone by stylistic choice, that is not the way his voice sounded naturally.
However, he did use that altered voice so much that eventually it did become his natural voice.
He probably could have found his true voice had he wanted to, but I don't think he ever felt comfortable sounding like a real man, and I don't mean that as an insult.
I love MJ's voice just the way it is, but I do wonder what he would have sounded like as an adult with his true voice.
Click to expand...

listen to Beautiful Girl or the bridge on Shout if you wanna hear his "true voice"
 
as I said in the first post, Michael also had problems with highs. He could have done better if he really wanted to sound like a child, as he amost did in the "Get On The Floor" verses... there his nose ressonates like before.
Here an intersting quote of the writer/producer of both versions of "Label Me Love":
"Michael himself was an enormous talent as a kid not yet in his teens, and I say this because the song I recorded with him I found to be in a tad too high a key. Initially, Mike had a problem adjusting his voice to the track [but he] figured a way to sing the lead without any changes to the key or the overall track. I was amazed at his natural ability to make it work, regardless of the circumstance"
 
You don't seem to understand Biology very well. An adult's voice isn't simply a pitched down version of what that person sounded like as a child. Like Justnat said "The boy soprano can become tenor, baritone or have no singing voice whatsoever after puberty." Michael became a high tenor.

Michael's unique and incredible voice is the reason why he, in my opinion, mastered more genres than any other artist. He could do pop, R&B, rock, hard rock, gospel, ballads, and even rap, to mention a few. And his efforts within each of these genres were always utterly amazing.
 
Hmm.. I'm starting to understand a little bit of what the OP means about MJ not using his "real", "mature" "loud" voice. That he somehow "holds" it back, trying to sound "younger". Man, what am I saying?

All I'm trying to say is, listen to Freddie Mercury. Listen to how he just screams as loud as he can while singing, it sounds very "natural", while MJ somehow holds it a little back. This is very hard to explain for me in English, but I hope someone understand what I mean. I am NOT dissing MJ's voice or anything like this - he has the best voice in the world and I would not change it for a thing.
 
Michael's voice changed. Everybody's voice changes in different ways. Michael was simply not able to sing out in the same way he did as a child because he plain lost the ability when his voice changed. But he was every bit as good a singer as an adult as he was as a child. He just sang in a different way.
 
@WildStyle, I very strongly disagree with you, on this.
WildStyle said:
Michael was simply not able to sing out in the same way he did as a child, because, he plain lost the ability when his voice changed.
Click to expand...
Have you ever listened to “Will You Be There?” and the “call-and-response” segments (the “What about us?” parts) in the last half of “Earth Song”? Come on, now!!! Oh, PLEASE. Just because Michael’s voice had slightly changed from a child’s Soprano, that change in pitch never meant he lost his ability to “belt” as loudly in volume as he could, at the top of his Chest Voice.

He didn’t do anywhere nearly as much loud “belting” —— almost very close to yelling or screaming, but just that much short of it —— as a “post-puberty” older teenager and an adult, as he did in his younger-childhood and early-teen “Motown” days. But, loud screaming, yelling and “belting” THE highest notes at the top of the Chest Register —— however impressive such “belting” may seem to be, to some people (including to YOU, judging by your comments and responses to me and other posters) —— does NOT necessarily mean that one has, nor is it alone indicative of someone having, a great singing-voice.

SO WHAT, if he didn’t do a whole lot of “belting” in his later career, after he and his brothers left Motown. He never would really depend upon that way or style of singing as if it were THE ONLY way TO sing properly and to express his emotions with and through the use of his voice. After all, it’s not how loudly one can “belt out” a note, nor how high up in the Modal/Chest Register one can sing without having to use Head Voice and/or “Falsetto” to reach the top extreme of the Upper Register, how narrowly limited or how wide a singer’s Vocal Range is (how many notes or Octaves such a Vocal Range can be measured as, from the lowest note to the highest), nor for how long a period of time someone can hold or sustain a note and how many complicated and intricate little staccatissimo, vocal riffs and runs can be mastered, that determines how well one can sing.

Techniques like these are quite impressive, and they do matter a little bit, but what is THE MOST important of all is how well a singer/vocalist can emotionally move and affect listeners, the effect on the audience.
 
Last edited:
etoile 37 said:
Huh. . . .This guy sounds nothing like Michael, nor like any of the Jacksons, for that matter. And, I much prefer Michael’s version, actually.
Click to expand...
Me, too, @etoile 37. So do I. I don’t get it, this weird, strange comparison of some random unknown, rather “average”-sounding, adult singer’s voice —— that of someone who could have just barely carried a tune, by the way —— to one of THE BEST vocalists of ALL Time throughout his whole entire 45-year career, to the most unique, most identifiable, most memorable and recognizable voice of none other than Michael Joseph Jackson.

NO ONE could ever sing like he did —— at any time in his life and career, whether as a child, a teenager or an adult —— though there are quite a few people who (deliberately, and consciously) TRY to imitate his “sound” and to emulate it, as we can easily tell the fakes and phonies from the 100% authentic, genuine and REAL voice.
 
Why are you resurrecting a thread from over 11 years ago? Most of these people aren't even on this website anymore...
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Pot Calling the Kettle “Black,” maybe. But, I don’t respond to people who are probably dead, at least...
Click to expand...
@Mister_Jay_Tee, are you trying to tell me to whom I can or cannot respond about what, if something I find either on this board or in this thread just so happens to interest me? How would I know how long another poster has been on this board, when I comment on a post about a particular topic? It shouldn’t even matter, at this point, how long a thread has been up; ANYONE who wants to comment on something of interest, or who wants to respond to an earlier comment from another fellow poster, should be allowed to do so as long as the thread is still open.
 
GGVVGGCC22331122 said:
@Mister_Jay_Tee, are you trying to tell me to whom I can or cannot respond about what, if something I find either on this board or in this thread just so happens to interest me? How would I know how long another poster has been on this board, when I comment on a post about a particular topic? It shouldn’t even matter, at this point, how long a thread has been up; ANYONE who wants to comment on something of interest, or who wants to respond to an earlier comment from another fellow poster, should be allowed to do so as long as the thread is still open.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to offend. You're fine for responding, Lord knows I do it all the time. I'm just saying, directly calling members who stopped speaking over 11 years ago, they probably won't answer you. It just seems like a waste of your keystrokes. But who knows This sites not like YouTube, no regular visitation or notifications in your email. But, you're fine, and I actually found what you revived interesting.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I don’t mean to offend. You’re fine for responding. . . .Lord knows, I do it all the time. I’m just saying, directly calling members who stopped speaking over 11 years ago, they probably won’t answer you. It just seems like a waste of your keystrokes. But who knows? This site is not like “YouTube,”® no regular visitation nor notifications in your E-Mail. But, you’re fine, and I actually found what you revived interesting.
Click to expand...
Thank you, @Mister_Jay_Tee, for your having admitted how you responded* to me (*and, that you also do and have done, quite often, the same thing I did with other fellow posters on this board), and for your understanding.

The topic greatly interested and intrigued me —— as the subject matter of Michael’s BEAUTIFUL singing-voice often does —— and so, I responded to another poster’s comment. Therefore, I took very serious issue with your response to me. But, it’s O.K., now. I’m glad you find my revival of this subject matter interesting as well.

Like I already said before, it’s completely ridiculous and foolish to compare an “average”-sounding, obviously “adult” voice (one that could just so much barely carry any tune at all, if even the slightest bit of a remote possibility of being able to do so had ever existed in the first place) to one as great as Michael’s was at every and ALL stages of his four and a half decade-long career —— including the five or six years before his and his brothers’ Motown audition, since he was only five years old (maybe, even younger than that) when he and Marlon first joined their three older brothers, Jackie, Tito and Jermaine* (*Jermaine once having been the original lead singer of the group, until the siblings’ mother successfully convinced their father to let Michael join the group after he at first wasn’t considered quite yet old enough. . . .as their father said that Michael was “Too young/Too little”) —— which spanned from a very young child to his teenage/adolescent years, and from his teenage years on through the various “post-puberty” stages of full-fledged adulthood, with even greater musical success as an adult solo artist in his own right, separate and apart from his brothers, than he had ever achieved in his youth.
 
Last edited:
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I don’t mean to offend. You’re fine for responding. . . .Lord knows, I do it all the time. I’m just saying, directly calling members who stopped speaking over 11 years ago, they probably won’t answer you. It just seems like a waste of your keystrokes. But who knows? This site is not like “YouTube,”® no regular visitation nor notifications in your E-Mail. But, you’re fine, and I actually found what you revived interesting.
Click to expand...
Thank you, @Mister_Jay_Tee, for your having admitted how you responded* to me (*and, that you also, quite often, do and have done the same thing I did with other fellow posters on this board), and for your understanding.

The topic greatly interested me —— as the subject matter of Michael’s BEAUTIFUL singing-voice often does —— and so, I responded to another poster’s comment. Therefore, I took very serious issue with your response to me. But, it’s O.K., now. I’m glad you find my revival of this subject matter interesting as well.

Like I already said before, it’s completely ridiculous and foolish to compare an “average”-sounding, obviously “adult” voice (one that could just so much barely carry any tune at all, if even the slightest bit of a remote possibility of being able to do so had ever existed in the first place) to one as great as Michael’s was at every and ALL stages of his four and a half decade-long career —— including the five or six years before his and his brothers’ Motown audition, since he was only five years old (maybe, even younger than that) when he and Marlon first joined their three older brothers, Jackie, Tito and Jermaine* (*Jermaine once having been the original lead singer of the group, until the siblings’ mother successfully convinced their father to let Michael join the group after he at first wasn’t considered quite yet old enough. . . .as their father said that Michael was “Too young/Too little”) —— which spanned from a very young child to his teenage/adolescent years, and from his teenage years on through the various “post-puberty” stages of full-fledged adulthood, with even greater musical success as an adult solo artist in his own right, separate and apart from his brothers, than he had ever achieved in his youth.
 
Last edited:
Hot_Street said:
This is how Michael sounded, because his voice matured normally:
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree with you, @Hot_Street. But, a louder Volume when onstage in LIVE performance of one song (“In the Closet,” from the 1991 “Dangerous” album) —— during one World Tour in one particular city —— in addition to a more “authoritative,” “commanding”-sounding Timbre/Tone (maybe even some hoarseness in the voice, probably due to such conditions as Laryngitis or others that affect the throat and vocal cords) when speaking in one part/segment of that song, gives absolutely NO evidence of Michael ever necessarily having had a “deep” voice, per sé. Nor was his sometimes, occasionally, having reached THE bottom limit of whatever sounds or notes his Lower Register could physically produce —— whether he sang lyrics or spoke words —— any indication that he really sounded more like Tito than Jackie in vocal Pitch, for the more than 30 years of his later-teenage and adult “post-puberty” existence.
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122 said:
@Mister_Jay_Tee, are you trying to tell me to whom I can or cannot respond about what, if something I find either on this board or in this thread just so happens to interest me? How would I know how long another poster has been on this board, when I comment on a post about a particular topic?
Click to expand...
Bringing up an old thread is one thing. But responding to comments over 10 years old from people who haven't posted in years doesn't make much sense to me. Are you expecting them to all of a sudden come back and reply? Even if people are still posting or lurking here, they might not even think the same from when the comment was originally made. That's like people looking up ancient celebrity posts on Twitter to try to cancel them.
 
DuranDuran said:
Bringing up an old thread is one thing. But responding to comments over ten years old, from people who haven’t posted in years, doesn’t make much sense to me. Are you expecting them to all of a sudden come back and reply? Even if people are still posting or lurking here, they might not even think the same from when the comment was originally made. That’s like people looking up ancient celebrity posts on “Twitter”® to try to cancel them.
Click to expand...
@DuranDuran, I’m going to ask YOU the same question I had asked earlier. Again:

“How would I have known how long a poster has been posting on this board, when I respond to comments made by others on a subject matter that really interests me? Is there a limit or restriction placed on whom I can respond to and converse with about what, when and for how long, here?”

This seems really unfair. I take very serious issue with anyone who resorts to criticizing the way I do what I do on this board and on other sites, because of either the failure of my critics to come up with a fairly decent, convincing argument as toWHY he, she or “they” disagree with me on any opinion or point made about whatever topic or subject matter that’s at hand (let’s say, the subject matter and content of this or some other thread, for instance) at any particular time, or they may be the type of people who can’t accept that not everyone has the same view as they do, and so, they want to control what everyone else either should or shouldn’t say to whom about what, when and for how long.
 
Last edited:
GGVVGGCC22331122 said:
@DuranDuran, I’m going to ask YOU the same question I had asked earlier. Again: “How would I have known how long a poster has been posting on this board, when I respond to comments made by others on a subject matter that really interests me? Is there a limit or restriction placed on whom I can respond to and converse with about what, when and for how long, here?”
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant. All comments have the date that they were posted, that's how I know the comments you replied to were posted in 2012. What is the point of replying to a comment that old, whether the poster is still here or not? You can bump the thread without doing that if you're just interested in the topic.
 
DuranDuran said:
That's irrelevant. All comments have the date that they were posted, that's how I know the comments you replied to were posted in 2012. What is the point of replying to a comment that old, whether the poster is still here or not? You can bump the thread without doing that if you're just interested in the topic.
Click to expand...
Let's not be pedantic, it's not a crime to reply. It is an old thread but there is still a chance the original poster may reply. It's happened before.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Let's not be pedantic, it's not a crime to reply. It is an old thread but there is still a chance the original poster may reply. It's happened before.
Click to expand...
The age of the thread does not matter, it's the age of the comments replied to. Does not make sense to reply to posts over a decade old. Just bump the thread if people want to bring a new discussion to the topic.
 
DuranDuran said:
The age of the thread does not matter, it's the age of the comments replied to. Does not make sense to reply to posts over a decade old. Just bump the thread if people want to bring a new discussion to the topic.
Click to expand...
I mean, we like old comments? Why not reply too. I see old replies of yours, Always there, SmoothGamgsta, etc. You're still active is the main difference.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I mean, we like old comments? Why not reply too. I see old replies of yours, Always there, SmoothGamgsta, etc. You're still active is the main difference.
Click to expand...
But you don't know if a particular inactive member is still alive or not though. To me, it's not in good taste to reply to someone who might be deceased & expect an answer. I could see if the comment was made 2 or 3 years ago, but October 2012? I'm not saying the posters replied to are deceased, but you can't assume they are alive with a comment that old, especially with what happened with the pandemic.
 
DuranDuran said:
But you don't know if a particular inactive member is still alive or not though. To me, it's not in good taste to reply to someone who might be deceased & expect an answer. I could see if the comment was made 2 or 3 years ago, but October 2012? I'm not saying the posters replied to are deceased, but you can't assume they are alive with a comment that old, especially with what happened with the pandemic.
Click to expand...
I mean, I had the same line of thought as you. I get what you're saying. But we can't police people on this board. Especially not as not mods anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top