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.
Well Ivy, I can assurely show you that 2000 Watts despite its uniqueness can be compared to other MJ vocals.
Listen to this version and tell me if it doesn't sound the same usual Mike we all know:
[youtube]Sb5QPXpEa-M[/youtube]
The thing is, if you high pitch the Cascio vocals, you don't obtain the same voice. Well, why would one even try to high pitch Cascio vocals, the voice isn't that deep. It is not the depth of the voice, but the timbre that poses a problem.
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).
The problem is that you are seeking for an objective answer. How do you obtain an objective answer if despite the objective procedure you use your ears which can't be but subjective. It is what you hear that will lead you to believe what you hear.
Even if I quote you an independent music company's opinion, it will still remain something that is subjective. Here is an example:
Sonustar and its network of websites are apart of an independent, wholly owned music, film, literary and internet company. We use the latest technology combined with cuttingedge concepts to market our products in many countries. Sonustar websites are visited by several hundred thousand unique visitors per month.
Innovation meets ingenuity. Communications meets creativity. Sight meets sound. Music - Movies - Television - Theater.
The Judiciary Report is the highly ranked, well read, politics and pop culture website, full of exclusives, catering to several hundred thousand unique users per month. The site covers everyone from Barack Obama to Angelina Jolie, with fair coverage that includes contrasting points of view. The Judiciary Report has just been accepted for inclusion in Google News. The website also has a presence on Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, Show Hype and many other notable websites.
[...]Sony Music are a bunch of liars. The Jackson family contends, the new song the label released entitled "Breaking News" reportedly performed by Michael Jackson, is not the late singer. The Judiciary Report listened to the song last night and agrees, that is not Michael Jackson on the track. Sony is trying to pull a fast one, out of sheer greed. The individual featured on the record sounds like a Michael Jackson imitator, which constitutes fraud. [...]
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 must protest. It is not because somebody introduces the idea that the person will automatically develop his listening skill based on what was introduced to the person as an idea.
Here is my case. When I heard BN for the first time, I stopped commenting on the forum. Why? Becasue I was so happy to finally hear new MJ material after so many years and didn't bother to come and comment anything. All I wanted is enjoy the new music. Alas, I had a bitter taste in my mouth of not recognizing MJ. I was happy, but at the same time not convinced. I actually tried to convince myself. Later in the evening without mentioning a slightest doubt to my wife (as I thought that my ears were playing tricks on me), I played it to her. She was looking at me and said: "was THAT MJ?" I said yes despite the fact that I just couldn't recognize his voice. I was simply following what SONY was telling me at the time. It IS MJ.
Anyway, I opened the possibility to one song sounding weird. But when I heard "Monster" (leaked on a hip hop site), I wasn't still commenting nor reading the MJJ board at the time, but I immediately recognized --Jason Malachi's voice. The same as in "Let me let go". That was my first reaction when I heard "Monster"!
Now tell me, how, without reading anyone's post and without commenting to anyone, I heard exactly the same as a bunch of people who I had never known before? We all heard the same thing at the same time and unanimously shared the same views without even getting any idea from anywhere or from anyone?
This is the main reason why I believe that it is all about listening impressions/skills and not about someone introducing an idea like a seed that grows inside a person's mind. This latter to me is absolutely speculative and surrealistic. Even professional gurus have hard time to drag people into the sects which takes weeks, months, years of convincing people (and with that, often people with not much knowledge on the subject or depressed ones; contrary to our case --we all know perfectly well MJ's voice).
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.
I just denied it by showing you an example.
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".
In all honesty, I do hear MJ in all his speeches. I actually don't hear a different MJ. We really need to put vocals side a side to discuss them. It is just as if I told you to listen to "Lady in my life" and "All I need" and that's it. It's not enough actually. We really need to put exact portions of vocals, just like we did with Malachi's and point out the exact match or at least the most blatant similarity and carefully listen if they sound the same or not.
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.
Well, if all what you mentioned give the results such as those Cascio tracks, what is left of MJ's natural voice anyway then? Was it worthy? And again, it doesn't explain the similarity with JM's vocals. That's what I said in my previous post, it seems completely ignored only because the comparisons are done by amateurs. Does it imply that amateurs are so good in processing that they succeeded in transforming Michael's voice into Malachi's?
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?
Was the studio in such a poor state and were the vocals in such a desperate need of processing to obtain --controversial vocals?
you too
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".
I disagree. We can dissecate, compile and categorize who hears what, and search further. We must start somewhere, since SONY doesn't give us any further details. Actually it could bring no harm on either side. SO I strongly believe that it isn't a waste of time. A waste of time would be to analyze non controversial vocals.
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?
Well it could be important in case you want to know if MJ was aware of the songs or not. But in case of determining who sings the lead vocals isn't important at the moment.
I read all your post, but I think that basically I answered all your points when you addressed some points to Arklove. If I omitted anything, just point it out.
Now that I have a longer post, do you love me back?
