Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- 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
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Yeah, Bumpy, I want it too.... I'm wai'-'in for it
I first have to upload it, there's no link at the moment.
PM me too please.
So you can more easily report it to SONY as other stuff?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
We want to hear MJ, but we can't. For the moment we only hear a soundalike and are able to show why we hear a soundlike.
Believers are accusing us of being biased and pointing out only the parts that seemingly don't sound MJ, as if we were focusing only on those parts on purpose.
Further on they are stating that for people who believe it is MJ, they even don't bother finding similarities with previous MJ songs as to them they hear MJ and not another vocalist.
On top of that we're told to go to court and at the same time accused of being unable to prove that those tracks are fake (as if the lack of court proof meant that the songs would be genuine).
However, when a doubter not asks, but BEGS the believer to indicate any part he or she thinks hear similar MJ to a previous song as it was done for Best Of Joy with Someone Put Your Hand Out and other songs, the believer suddenly gets completely MUTE.
What I observe:
Believers are quick to jump on everything that is perfectly legal (lead vocals/vocal tracks, copyright, song registration, musicologist analysis, the Estate's report, etc.) and even go as far as to compare some previous lyrics with the Cascio ones. But when they're kindly asked to point which vocals parts could be compared to any other MJ's song, we get a complete blank and the question is quickly forgotten.
To me there are two main things in this mess which are very clear:
1st Whatever SONY/Estate/Cascios did, they did it in a perfectly legal way. No apparent irregularity has been done so far:
-the Cascio songs are registered and attributed to Michael Jackson (posthumously)
-the Estate has recognized them as such (as being MJ's vocals)
-SONY bought them as being legally labeled MJ's songs
-to be sure that MJ is on those songs they hired a team of musicologists who comfirmed it is MJ on the vocals they submitted (are theese latter the same we hear, we don't know).
-the album is released respecting all the legal aspects
Case closed.
2nd We (doubters) do not hear MJ despite all the legal regularity. It does not mean that the doubters are taking the laws lightly, but simply that at some point, as far as vocals are concerned, something unorthodox happened and the results are here: controversy.
It does not mean that we are not reasonably aware of some legal practices. Many legal problems happened before and still will. Who's guilty, who's not, is not the issue. The issue is, at the moment, the very fact that we are for some reasons unable to hear MJ's voice on those tracks and hear Jason's! The point is, we didn't know each others among doubters, yet we have come up to the same conclusion.
So, if we look through the legal system, apparently there's nothing wrong that we will find out and the case is closed in court and in the forum. Nevertheless, despite the closed case from the legal approach, we still haven't resolved the fact that we don't hear Michael Jackson.
Hence, our only tool to demonstrate why we hear someone else is to make vocal comparisons. No matter how amateurish they may be, the similarity is more than alarming to our ears. This is what prevents us from enjoying the songs - the doubt. It feels wrong, weird, unorthodox, unMichael.
So, in order to remove our doubts, instead of labeling us as law-ignorant with no knowledge about it whatsoever, and talking to us with arrogance as Pompous Git has habit with his members on Max Jax (the last one being Pompous Git vs Aniram), let's bear in mind that among doubters we do have decades long and devoted fans who come from all backgrounds and who have different experiences, talents and professions on all levels who all experience the same problem: not hearing MJ on those Cascio songs.
So, in return, all we are asking, is not to create trouble or boycot MJ's albums or legacy, but simply to join our forces and solve this problem so that we all could enjoy those songs. And, for the starters, why not pointing out which vocal parts on the Cascio songs should be compared to MJ's previous material?
It is important to underline that this is not a combat of believers against doubters, but of fans against those who split the community. So if we don't help each other instead of banning and silencing --including reporting fans for audio comparisons-- fans on MJ boards because of such a rift, you can be sure that MJ's legacy will eventually go with the wind and that the music industry will milk us regardlessly.
Last edited:
Let's be fair here.
first of all most believers wouldn't have a part that they believe "similar MJ to a previous song" as most believers think that the difference is explainable by some factors that you'd like to call excuses. So for example any believer that thinks the difference is due to quality of recording + processing wouldn't be making the argument of "similar to MJ in this song" and gave you an example. So your request is contrary to their explanation and beliefs and therefore not really possible.
For example "2000 watts" wouldn't be comparative to majority of MJ's songs because it's unique but that doesn't mean it's not Michael.
secondly there have been some examples that has been completely rejected as well. Korgnex at the very beginning of this debate had posts clearly attributing Vocals to MJ and Porte. It was automatically rejected without many comments. Recently "backgrounds are MJ" had been mentioned. I haven't seen any real and new objective evaluation of the backgrounds, all it was said that " I don't hear him, I'll be surprised if it's Michael" etc. Furthermore I quoted Birchey from our talk some months ago and said that he said "boy" sounds unmistakably Michael - no comment whatsoever.
Just 1-2 days ago I also commented on "he was stabbed in the back as a matter of fact" again no comments whatsoever.
So at best any contrary argument you put out there isn't really evaluated , definitely not with an open mind and nothing is given its due by the opposite sides so in my opinion it is no longer an evaluation and that any effect is waste of time. At one moment I did intend to go over a song but seeing everything rejected as "excuse" etc made the think "why bother". I was content with what I was hearing and I didn't feel the need to prove that. and that's my position. I don't go around asking "where do you hear Malachi" and none of the comparison videos really changed my opinion. I expect the same reaction from the opposite side and classify this as waste of time honestly.
which actually kinda shows that the doubters arguments is nothing more than a subjective point of view.
Let's not generalize shall we. I mean I just looked over the MaxJax this morning and read people saying that they didn't know Malachi before. I mean okay I can give you that many people felt that it wasn't Michael on the vocals , fine. But if many of these people also didn't know Malachi beforehand , it shows to me that they (the people didn't know Malachi) were fed to believe the vocals to be Malachi by arguments and comparison videos. They didn't come to the Malachi result independently.
to be clear my last part of the comment is only aimed towards people who didn't know Malachi beforehand. I'm sure most of you did know him before. Let me tell you my example. I knew Malachi before as his sing was mistaken as MJ and I had "7even" album and listened to Malachi. He never sounded like Michael to me, he had some moments that he was similar to Michael but couldn't carry it all through the song and was clearly a lot more amateur then Michael. I had done this listening, evaluation and opinion some time before Michael's death and before the release of "Michael". So I had an independent opinion before this debate and it didn't change.
On the other hand you have a group of people that doesn't have this independent opinion. they hear something wrong with the vocals (which might be independent or not as well) but no idea how and why it's wrong. Yet later you see them being convinced that it's Jason. that's problematic IMO.
Why wouldn't it be comparative? If you say it's unique, but doesn't mean it's not Michael, ......so then it's easy to compare. You even said yourself that 2000 watts (according to Teddy) is not really processed. Michael's voice is deeper, but it's still obviously Michael. The characteristics of his voice are there; all of them lol
You also know that there is not much processing to the Cascio vocals as we're led to believe...
Also, I'm one of those people who wasn't familiar with Malachi's voice. When I first heard people saying it was Malachi, I thought it was ridiculous...It just seemed too 'obvious' to me that it could be him. Didn't change what I thought about the tracks though....It didn't matter who was singing on the tracks, I just knew it wasn't Michael....I started hearing the comparisons, and it was too hard to deny the blatant similarities.....I wasn't fed anything lol....I believe it because there are tons and tons of comparisons that specify certain pronounciations, style of voice etc, etc, AND in turn, there AREN'T ANY comparisons that have been made to show a similarity between real MJ tracks and Cascio tracks, NONE...So, what am I supposed to think? lol.....If it's not Jason, I don't care....It's still not Michael...To be honest, I"ve barely listened to the comparisons...I listen to them as they come up, just once, and that's it...With or without them, I still don't hear Michael....They don't make a shred of difference to me....They're just hard to ignore...
You also mentioned that you 'don't go around asking where we hear Malachi'...well, of course you don't need to do that...we readily say where we hear him and the comparisons show that ten fold....You say you hear Michael? Where? (you don't have to answer me, I know you won't answer)...But the point is, if I say to someone, 'Oh, look at that bird flying there, look at the colour of his wings, it's a nice orange colour'...and you say to me, 'Where? I don't see the orange?'....Naturally, of course, you're gonna wanna know where this orange colour is....I'd happily show you where I see it....I wouldn't say, 'I don't have to show you anything, I don't have to prove it'....See what I mean? It's simple curiosity lol
I can easily say you were swayed to believe it's Michael after the estate's statement.....I'm not accusing you of that, but if you want to say I was swayed in anyway to believe it's Jason, well, then I can say the same to you..It's a ridiculous thing to say...You need to give people a little more credit than that...We use our ears...
I'm not trying to attack you in anyway, and if you don't want to answer where you hear Michael, fine...doesn't matter to me....But a simple request has turned into this long, drawn out refusal (from the believers in general) and the reasons for refusal and it really doesn't need to be that complicated....It's for sake of discussion....
Last edited:
love is magical
Proud Member
9 more pages to get to 900 pages and 900 more pages to pass the Manhood thread... lol...
love is magical
Proud Member
omg... i was furiously finding the "thanks" button... lol... silly me...
Bravo Bumpy!!!
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
Bravo Bumpy!!!
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
Last edited:
bahahahahaha...I know! I love the 'thanks' button! I wish they used it here....I heard the reason was because it makes it look messy...but it's better than seeing post after post saying 'good post, i agree'....You can just 'thank' them.
claudiadoina
Proud Member
^^ LOL! We're still not past the manhood thread? Well, I guess that makes sense lol....MJ's
You'll never past , I made like :scratch:1500 posts in manhood thread in 3 months :bugeyed:
love is magical
Proud Member
:naughty: don't stop till you get enough...
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Let's.
It doesn't have to be a song. It could be any other circumstance where MJ's vocals don't sound usual.
I am really open to accept the argument of poor recording and equipment and processing and all the plausible factors, I really am.
What boggles me is that I've heard MJ in even worse situations and the voice wasn't that distorted.
As you said, let's be fair. If the poor equipment and processing give this kind of voice to MJ, how come that some poorer equipment such as either a processed or a non-processed phone call doesn't distort MJ's voice at all?
Here is how I look at something that sounds logical and fair to me:
A) if I hear MJ's voice on the phone, I'd say the quality is extremely poor, yet it is MJ-on-the-phone voice
B) if I hear MJ's voice on the poor equipment, I should have the same type of "audio experience" and hear MJ-on-the-poor-equipment voice
but here is the problem:
C) Neither do I necessarily hear poor equipment, nor MJ-on-the poor-equipment voice/accent/intonation/husk/timbre; it's a bit too much for just a poor equipment factor. My only question to this is WHY?
Not why don't I hear MJ's voice, but why don't I hear MJ-on-the-poor-equipment voice?
I completely agree. 2000 Watts is unique. Unique as in ONE and not 12 songs! But anyway, if you go on youtube, you'll easily find pitched up 2000 Watts and you'll hear usual MJ's voice. If you pitch up or down the vocals on the Cascio tracks, you'll just hear the same timbre either slowed down or accelerated without a trace of MJ's usual voice.
I agree. But (there is always a "but(t)" :naughty: ), the problem with Korgnex's post about attributed vocals is that it was only one post among many. There was no strong unanimity about the attributions as in the case of doubters who unfortunately are unable to hear MJ's voice even if you tell them where it is.
So in order to confirm Korgnex's claim about the attempt regarding the attributed vocals, it is crucial for us to put those vocals side aside with another MJ's vocals from any other song or any other circumstance so that we can clearly see the ressamblance.
Instead, we've been able to show the ressemblance with Malachi's voice. It's not right. It shouldn't be that way at all, yet it is.
The primary issue at the moment is the lead vocals, not the background vocals. If MJ isn't in the background vocals is not that important. What is more serious is not to hear him as the singer.
Regarding "boy" pronunciation and what Birchey said, I personally hadn't analyzed it and I would like to do so. But (again a but(t) :naughty: ), Birchey also said that there were some copy pasted vocals from Michael Jackson. So, as a doubter, yes I can admit that there are some pasted vocals here and there from MJ, but still the mystery remains regarding the huge parts, almost entire songs, where I hear a completely different voice.
Where did you comment, I must have skipped that part or don't remember it. But honestly, that part especially doesn't sound Michael at all, neither lyrically nor vocally. My first impression, when I heard that part was: "a bunch of teenage voices".
Subsequently, I asked myself, how come I can't hear MJ singing. So, What I usually do, is go back to MJ's previous songs and try to detect any ressemblance, but fail to. Then with fear I start to sweat and try to listen to a JM song just out of curiosity to see if I can find any ressamblace, and I don't fail to. Not once, but each time I hear a cascio song.
So, all I can say is that if MJ's vocals wrere on those tracks, what on earth has been done to those vocals to ressemble JM's not only to my ears but to many of us? It is clearly the first time in MJ history that fans who didn't know each other unite thanks to the same conclusion: "we don't hear MJ". Furthermore "we hear JM".
So if, we doubters are heavily wrong, we need serious help, and I am not being sarcastic here.
The problem is that when the argument from the believers is put forward, the striking ressemblance with JM's voice is being completely ignored. That's why so far the arguments presented have been all theoretical, except the legal part (which doesn't make us hear MJ's voice even though everything seems legally defendable).
A more concrete argument would be as a matter of fact an amateurish comparison of a previous MJ song with a Cascio song. Just the way we do it with JM. I mean, there is no hurt in trying to do so.
It's not wasting of time, it's helping each other.
Try me.
The comparisons are not made to convince people necessarily. It was purely made to say "look, this is what we hear on th ecascio songs and that's why we doubt them. Do you hear the same what we do? No? Ok, no prob. Please show us your samples of comparisons and let's talk about them."
So, no, not a waste of time, but I'll restate it as helping each other why we hear different things.
Who knows, maybe in doing so from both sides, we'd be able to eventually dig up where we absolutely could agree that we hear MJ, where not and who's that other singer if it's not MJ.
I also said that if you simply point out the vocals where you hear MJ and tell me to which other vocals to compare it, I'll do it. I mean I proposed to believers not to waste time in making the comparisons. I simply asked them to highlight them. I'll make the audio file if necessary to spare people's time.
Well, yes, so as it is believers'. And that's ok. But we must also justify our mutual subjectivity. Personally I don't believe neither in neutrality nor in objectivity when it comes to what we see, hear, touch, smell or taste; a human being is incapable of being neutral. Very often, people mix up the terms "being neutral" and "deliberately ignoring a problem in order to hide their own subjectivity".
Or, when they discovered Malachi, they simply came to the same conclusion that the vocals on the Cascio tracks ressemble more Malachi's than Michael's.
If you think that is that easy to feed MJ's fans and lead them to believe that they don't hear their idol after years and decades of listening, give me the secret. How? By simply uploading amateurish comparisons? By what magic are people dragged to believe that they don't hear MJ's voice?
Ah, another genuine MJ's album. ( :rofl: just kidding)
Well if you asked people who don't know MJ's voice that well, they couldn't tell the difference between MJ and JM in some songs.
Malachi is apparently a trained singer. He has reportedly sung from the age of 8 or 9, let's not underestimate his capacities. He clearly fooled people in 2007.
By the way, he already released two albums and is on his way for the third one apparently. Add to that today's processing methods and technology, and you'll easily come to conclusion that JM could carry it all through the songs. I am not praising him,but let's be fair, his lives and a cappellas show that he's perfectly able to sing without much processing.
Well, what do I have to tell you to guarantee you that I had independent opinion too? Nobody influenced it. As I stated earlier, how (with what method) can you convince/influence a hardcore fan that he's not hearing MJ?
When I was a young teenager, I used to wake up my grand-mother in the middle of the night when MJ appeared on TV, even for few seconds (out of excitment). Do you think that such a fan can be told twenty and ish years later of daily listening to MJ "it's not MJ"?
Brainwashing and feeding isn't a good argument I am afraid. It is clearly related to our listening skills (no offense intended to anyone).
Why is it problematic? I mean what if that IS Jason? Would it be still problematic? You mentioned Birchey and his copy-pasted vocals of MJ. Let's be fair and complete what he said, that is to say that he believes the singer on the Cascio songs IS Jason Malachi.
Furthermore, even if it wasn't JM, isn't it worrying to see people who independantly hear that there are some major problems with the vocals, yet the Estate/SONY/the Cascios didn't care if they were released in such a state.
If those were MJ's vocals and there is a controversy, wouldn't be more respectful towards the fan base and above all towards Michael Jackson, not to release those tracks until there is a solid proof or no slightest doubt that it is MJ, just like when Escape, STTR, 12 'Oclock, Blue Gangsta, etc. leaked. Nobody ever doubted them and nothing wrong was with vocals on those songs.
Last edited:
love is magical
Proud Member
Let me confess. I'm never really 100% convinced that it's Jason on 100% of the lead vocal. I'm not familiar with Jason Malachi voice. I don't plan to study his voice. Because, for me, I don't care if it's Jason Malachi or not. What I care is whether it's Michael Jackson on the tracks.
The comparisons are still of value to me because they show how the vocals on the Cascio tracks can sound so strikingly smilar to vocals that belong to another vocalist. Even if the tracks are 100% genuine, one cannot deny that the end results sound extremely close to vocals of a well known impersonator.
You mentioned that Jason Malachi cannot carry a whole song sounding like Michael. Actually, I think no impersonator in this world can carry a whole song sounding like Michael. If they do, they should have gotten famous on their own merits by now. However, aren't the Cascio tracks pieced together by many takes (even recording in different volume)? It's not like the vocalist on the Cascio tracks are doing such amazing job that they sound completely like Michael Jackson in one take. The problem here is THEY DON'T.
love is magical
Proud Member
Save it Bumper. Ivy won't flirt back. Unlike us, she's a good girl. :fear:
Remind me of one of Paris' tweets "good girls are bad girls who are not caught." lol... that girl is quite witty.
Remind me of one of Paris' tweets "good girls are bad girls who are not caught." lol... that girl is quite witty.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
love is magical
Proud Member
It's a tweet from pariisjaxon. She became quite active in the past few days. She tweeted pictures of herself taken in Disney Land. I can reasonably assume that paiisjaxon is indeed Paris' account.
At first, I worried about her having a social network account (anyway, who am I to have concern?). People bombered her with "I love you Paris", "Paris, do you miss your daddy?", etc...
But, based on her tweets, I can tell this girl is quite mature for her age. So far, she's handled it quite well.
Lol... I feel a little creepy following a 13 year-old girl.
love is magical
Proud Member
I'm just being open-minded, open-armed and welcoming to all the nice ladies
ivy, do him a favour, give him a hug... he's longing your love.... :huggy:
hahaaha....Yeah, she is quite mature for her age....I see a lot of her father in her...
And she was right about her quote
I'm just being open-minded, open-armed and welcoming to all the nice ladies
[YouTube]DjN8X7tgpUE[/YouTube]
love is magical
Proud Member
hahaaha....Yeah, she is quite mature for her age....I see a lot of her father in her...
And she was right about her quote
I know it's crazy for me to say this. But, I know why many people are drawn to her, not necessarily because she's Michael's daughter, but because of her natural ability to get people's attention. At only 13 year of age, she already has some of Michael's magnetic charisma.
Alright, back on the Cascio tracks.
It's not comparative in the sense that bumper is asking. He wants people to give him another song that Michael sounds the same to Cascio's. By the same logic and example I'm saying okay give me a song that Michael sounds similar to 2000 watts - it's not about characteristics it's about sounding the same. You wouldn't have a comparative example because 2000 watts is unique in nature but it doesn't make it not Michael. Similarly I believe Cascio songs to be unique in nature hence they might not have a comparative sample as well.
says who? people who comment on forums that make comparison videos and play around with free versions of pro tools? Sorry but unless a real producer that has multi year experience in the subject says so I will not take it as a fact. why? I told about double tracking overlaying composite vocals etc before and was replied with "not possible" by the "experts". The other day I posted an example from 1991 with composite lead vocals and I have seen background singers being used and kept "not heard" to give body to enhance the weak lead vocals. So like I said it will not be a "fact" for me unless a real expert evaluates and gives their opinion (preferably an objective one).
Like I said you thinking it's not Michael is fine but Malachi idea is introduced to you. If this was a court you would have been a witness that has been led.
I give people credit for saying "this doesn't sound like Michael". you cannot deny that Malachi idea was introduced to you and you didn't think that on your own.
this has been done multiple times. I posted a speaking section during a live concert before, 2006 world awards are posted multiple times. Even 2000 watts is an example that he doesn't sound like "usual".
and that's a valid counter argument.
in my personal opinion processing is not the only factor here. in your question it would have to be the only thing.
poor quality with no processing. the only effect on this will be the quality with no modification so it would sound like him.
you don't account for processing here. and I think that's the problem. I mean you can't pick one factor and forget the rest. If the believers argument is poor quality + guide vocals + processing + Porte , you need to account for them all.
You say Michael on the phone sounds like Michael so Michael on crappy equipment should sound like Michael. I say fine but what about processing + Porte?
see above
the last sentence actually tells us why it is a waste of time to even try to show where people hear what. Simply put you hear what you hear, I hear what I hear. neither one of us is going to change it even though the other one goes "here listen to this can't you hear it".
that might not be the "main" issue you are right. but it also shows that people (generally speaking) isn't open to evaluation. For example if evaluated and if everyone agreed that MJ is indeed on the background vocals many claims - that Michael never knew or contributed to this songs go out the window and it turns into an agreement of "okay there's Michael in the songs but how much is it Michael?". why wouldn't that be an important thing?
this is not about the copy paste parts. this is about the comparison you asked. you always make the point of pronunciation etc, "boy" is an argument about it. speaking of Birchey I forgot the name of the song but he said to me that one of the cascio songs was definitely Michael. I actually joked with him saying that he can't say both "michael and not michael" simultaneously.
my comment was about lyrical content not vocals.
okay legal arguments aside I also think that the comparisons are weak at best. example I said on maxjax that they lacked reliability and validity - those are statistical terms which means that a test is measuring what it is supposed to measure (validity) and will give the same / similar result (reliability).
so let's establish some fact here first okay? Jason Malachi is a Michael Jackson sound alike at times can indeed sound similar to Michael. Do we all agree?
so you give me a comparison of a word from cascio song to a word from Malachi song. The comparison lacks validity because we don't know if it's indeed matching Jason Malachi (in Cascio song) to Jason Malachi (in JM song) or is it matching Jason Malachi sounding like Michael (in a Malachi song) to Michael Jackson (in Cascio song). Similarly reliability would require any words from Cascio songs to match to Jason Malachi style all the time. We don't have that either. Range is totally omitted in the comparison as well but that's another thing I guess.
to be clear, I do agree that "believers" are also subjective. I never claimed to be neutral or unbiased. I argued that none of us were objective. Your post mentioned "experts hired" I was referring to them as a better "objective opinion" when compared to "doubters". I wasn't claiming that believers were objective.
Honestly I think the effect of conditioning mustn't be this minimized. I told this before. I had heard the controversy rumors from RF before the songs released. I listened to BN thinking "is it or isn't it Michael?" there's no sense in denying that the idea of the songs might be fake was prior introduced. Again to be clear I'm not saying those news reports or Jackson tweets formed your opinion but they introduced it.
It would be one thing if BN streamed and half a hour later people said "hey it doesn't sound like Michael" on their own. It's another thing that people heard "it might not be Michael" before they started listening to the song.
and how did his albums did? He can be an okay singer - which I do not deny - but to me he doesn't have the technique and ability that Michael has. again to me it's obvious in his songs. he can be an okay singer in his own right but IMO his ability to mimic Michael is overrated.
I didn't generalize it to everyone or you. I said it only referred to people that didn't hear Malachi before.
I never claimed brainwashing, let's be fair. My whole argument was that the songs might be fake was introduced. I clearly admit that I listened to the songs as "is it or isn't it Michael?". How many of you did the same? Feeding was a point about non independent opinion and I was thinking semi legally. My point in that was how many of you thought that "this is not Michel oh wait a minute this is Jason" and how many of you thought "this vocals sound weird" and then went to a MJ forum / Cascio debate and saw the name Jason with accompanying comparison videos and then came to believe that it was "Jason"?
again I was kinda thinking from a legal perspective there. Independent opinions are stronger. Not independent opinions are leading the witness and hearsay.
if Estate / Sony indeed did the objective analysis like they say they might have a better idea about the issue.
that's a separate issue IMO.
and why would this be problematic? an impersonator is supposed to sound like the person that they impersonate otherwise they wouldn't be an impersonator or well -known in that regard. Read the part that I wrote about reliability , validity?
No I don't think so. I mean my talk with Birchey was limited but he told me for water I believe it was one low quality take. another song was 2 tracks for lead vocals some parts overlayed. I do not consider that as "many takes".
so then what do we think about the hollywood tonight tweet then?
and a disclaimer I have "remember me" checked on my computer. So MJJC shows me online and in the thread even though I'm not across my computer and reading the thread.
Ivy, this isn't a court of law lol...People can make their own opinions and beliefs...As I said to you before, I don't care if it's Malachi or not ...It just so happens to sound exactly like Malachi and not like Michael (in my opinion, and I"m not taking it to court lol)
Malachi was introduced to me via comparisons yes, and so what? As I said, the comparisons don't make a difference to me; if I never heard them, I'd STILL think it wasn't Michael...I wasn't 'led' to believe it's Malachi....It sounds exactly like him! My EARS led me to believe that, if you will lol
Last edited:
Let me take my annual holidays and I'll read your post
The year after, I'll answer it
you lost your touch bumper. I no longer love you..
of course it's him. It wasn't an argument about whether 2000 watts was Michael or not. It was an argument about how many comparative songs do you have that Michael sounds exactly the same to 2000 watts. I'm not talking about pronunciation, timbre, accent etc.
I never claimed it is a court of law. the point was how some opinions were weaker than they are portrayed out to be. as I said the thought came to my mind after seeing the posts on MaxJax this morning. Last night there was a discussion about why wouldn't the comparisons hold in court, today I read people didn't know Malachi beforehand. That was a point that weakened their argument. My mind works semi - legally , I can't help it so don't mind me when I do that