Michael - The Great Album Debate

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Sadly, and unbelievably, it's the acapella of BN that convinced a lot that it IS him.....

Convinced - no, made them believe - yes.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Sadly, and unbelievably, it's the acapella of BN that convinced a lot that it IS him.....

What?!?

 

[Tony R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I've never knowingly listened to Jason Malachi (emphasis on knowingly), but has anyone ever mentioned that his name is almost a perfect anagram of Michael Jackson? In fact, if his middle name was Eck he'd be there, which admittedly is rather unlikely unless he's from Yorkshire.

I'm not sure what my point is really.

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

What?!?

It's true....I've seen a lot of people who thought BN was fake at first, then after listening to the acapella, it concluded for them that it is him...

EDIT: I didn't mean me! If that's what you thought...

 

[Jesta]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Sigh, I miss the days of off-topic discussion...

Anyway, as I've posted for the 3rd time, please listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR_xyWIX5xU

From the line "You Won't Get A Sniff Without Me!" it's someone other than Jeremy Irons singing, a voice actor called Jim Cummings. I ask you to please listen to that and tell me if you can notice any difference. My point about that is that if Disney is smart enough to hire an almost-exact impersonator, surely the Estate is if they did come up with fake vocals?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I've never knowingly listened to Jason Malachi (emphasis on knowingly), but has anyone ever mentioned that his name is almost a perfect anagram of Michael Jackson? In fact, if his middle name was Eck he'd be there, which admittedly is rather unlikely unless he's from Yorkshire.

I'm not sure what my point is really.

Yes, some people speculated that Jason Malachi doesn't exist and that it is Michael Jackson. Anyway I am not sure about this, but I think that it is his artist's name and not his real name. Anyway, the anagram is not perfect, the sound "k" and letter "e" are missing and there is an "a" too many.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

It's true....I've seen a lot of people who thought BN was fake at first, then after listening to the acapella, it concluded for them that it is him...

EDIT: I didn't mean me! If that's what you thought...

No I didn't think that. I was just stupified that anyone would think that was proof that it WAS Michael. Unreal!

 

[Tony R]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Yes, some people speculated that Jason Malachi doesn't exist and that it is Michael Jackson. Anyway I am not sure about this, but I think that it is his artist's name and not his real name. Anyway, the anagram is not perfect, the sound "k" and letter "e" are missing and there is an "a" too many.

But there is a 'k', 'a' and 'e' in Breaking News.

I may have solved this puzzle.

 

[Arklove]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

No I didn't think that. I was just stupified that anyone would think that was proof that it WAS Michael. Unreal!

If I needed any more convincing that it wasn't him, I'd listen to the acapella...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

But there is a 'k', 'a' and 'e' in Breaking News.

I may have solved this puzzle.

Lol. You might give some ideas to Dan Brown

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I suppose because the Cascio told so.

You don't find it rather rude to answer a question for someone else that wasn't even directed to you?

Like I've said before, there are parts in the song, that don't sound like Michael, in any circumstance, ie. Stay. But I've also said that it's easier for me to accept the melodyne/processing claim, because of studio work I've done, and experience with such program on another's voice, whereas it isn't so easy for some of you. I'll just say I'm pro-Cascio tracks, only for the reason of legality, and the circumstances surrounding the issue, no one has been sued yet, not one lawsuit has been issued, by the family or anyone else. And it's been almost 3 months, also the prime suspect has denied his participation.

Michael doesn't sound like himself on these records, but I can't say it isn't him, I wasn't there, I don't know what he was going through at the time, and the circumstance in which these songs were recorded.

Now with that said, a similar issue has arose in the world, an Alabama lawfirm has sued Taco Bell, the brand, for false advertisement. Which the lawsuit claims only consist's of 35% meat, in turn, the company welcomed the lawsuit. Issued an ad thanking the ones responsible of the lawsuit, and pushed to prove what exactly is in it's beef. Since then, statements have been released, the president has issued videos, and the company has came out and stated all the ingredients of it's beef, which is 85% beef, 5% spices and seasoning, 3% water, and 5% oats/sugar/etc. Welcoming a test from the department of health, and basically saving their ass with proof.

Now, that raises question as to why no one has sued Sony or The Cascio's for a similar action, and has driven them to prove who exactly is on these songs, other than those who are credited. It certainly shows that big money making companies aren't safe from lawsuits regarding fraud and legitimacy, through contracts. So it makes one wonder why nothing has been done yet in regards to this situation.

Combine that, with my own personal emotions and it's hard to believe comparison video's from a handful of people. I just haven't been as active in the discussion as I once was, because like I also stated, it isn't going to go anywhere.

Sigh, I miss the days of off-topic discussion...

Anyway, as I've posted for the 3rd time, please listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR_xyWIX5xU

From the line "You Won't Get A Sniff Without Me!" it's someone other than Jeremy Irons singing, a voice actor called Jim Cummings. I ask you to please listen to that and tell me if you can notice any difference. My point about that is that if Disney is smart enough to hire an almost-exact impersonator, surely the Estate is if they did come up with fake vocals?

The soothing nature of the voice is gone after that line, another indication of the change is the voice being overdubbed by the background instruments throughout the end of the song. Had I not been informed of the change point, I would've thought the singer finished the song with a cold.

 

[Jesta]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I think the loss of the soothing tone in the voice was intentional to show the intensity leading up to the climax of the song. Jim Cummings is an incredibly talented impersonator in many songs replacing the villains, like Christopher Lloyd in the film "Anastasia". Jim Cummings did the song "In the Dark of the Night" in place of Christopher Lloyd. Here's the song in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1vDqgsbyhQ

Again, my point is why hire someone like Jason Malachi where people like Jim Cummings with an extremely versatile vocal range would do a better impression?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You don't find it rather rude to answer a question for someone else that wasn't even directed to you?

Like I've said before, there are parts in the song, that don't sound like Michael, in any circumstance, ie. Stay. But I've also said that it's easier for me to accept the melodyne/processing claim, because of studio work I've done, and experience with such program on another's voice, whereas it isn't so easy for some of you. I'll just say I'm pro-Cascio tracks, only for the reason of legality, and the circumstances surrounding the issue, no one has been sued yet, not one lawsuit has been issued, by the family or anyone else. And it's been almost 3 months, also the prime suspect has denied his participation.

Michael doesn't sound like himself on these records, but I can't say it isn't him, I wasn't there, I don't know what he was going through at the time, and the circumstance in which these songs were recorded.

Now with that said, a similar issue has arose in the world, an Alabama lawfirm has sued Taco Bell, the brand, for false advertisement. Which the lawsuit claims only consist's of 35% meat, in turn, the company welcomed the lawsuit. Issued an ad thanking the ones responsible of the lawsuit, and pushed to prove what exactly is in it's beef. Since then, statements have been released, the president has issued videos, and the company has came out and stated all the ingredients of it's beef, which is 85% beef, 5% spices and seasoning, 3% water, and 5% oats/sugar/etc. Welcoming a test from the department of health, and basically saving their ass with proof.

Now, that raises question as to why no one has sued Sony or The Cascio's for a similar action, and has driven them to prove who exactly is on these songs, other than those who are credited. It certainly shows that big money making companies aren't safe from lawsuits regarding fraud and legitimacy, through contracts. So it makes one wonder why nothing has been done yet in regards to this situation.

Combine that, with my own personal emotions and it's hard to believe comparison video's from a handful of people. I just haven't been as active in the discussion as I once was, because like I also stated, it isn't going to go anywhere.




The soothing nature of the voice is gone after that line, another indication of the change is the voice being overdubbed by the background instruments throughout the end of the song. Had I not been informed of the change point, I would've thought the singer finished the song with a cold.

Rude is when you insult people. I did not insult you, I said what you actually do believe. You believe it is Michael because in your eyes it is purely legally done. And for the moment the Cascio tracks are legally proven to be authentic, I do not debate that. I debate the way it was done and the reasons why and by whom they were questioned.

Read the article I posted and you'll see that even SONY doubted the tracks! They got duped because of the objective audiologists results and they decided to release the tracks despite their own doubting ears! However, the complete objective analysis was not carried out. It's so obvious when you read the article.

On a personal note, this is a public forum and anyone can answer questions that are raised even if they are addressed to you or me or anyone else. If you prefer a private discussion with anyone on this board you can use the pms.

 

[kreen]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Either way, the Cascio songs are NOWHERE NEAR as close as this. They sound absolutely nothing like Michael Jackson. It's not even close.

See, this is exactly the kind of claim that tends to invalidate your position, if you think the Cascio tracks are fake. "The singer sounds nothing like Michael Jackson". Who does he sound like then? Tony Bennet? Elvis Presley? Lady Gaga? OF COURSE he sounds A LOT like Michael Jackson, which is why -- if the tracks are fake -- they still managed to fool millions of people, including executives at Sony, coworkers of MJ like Greg Phillinganes, hundreds of music reviewers, and many more.

To say that the person singing KYHU sounds nothing like MJ, "not even close", is to basically invalidate your position by denying an obvious similarity in voices. Let me put it this way : if you believe in the hoax, you have to believe that the voices are similar, because without that similarity, there would be no hoax.

 

[ivy]

The recent discussion about the comparisons - analysis and proof prompted me to write this which is a combination of a basic knowledge of voice recognition and good enough of knowledge of scientific research and statistic basics - combined with a little of legal info.

Let's first cover some bases

EARS CAN HEAR BETTER THAN WAVEFORM ANALYSIS BASED ON VISUAL INTERPRETATION OF WAVES RENDERED BY SOFWARES.

not true IMO. ears / our hearings are subjective - not objective. for example there's a saying that if something happens and 100 people witness it and you ask them you'll get 100 different version of the events. And we also see how our hearing is subjective as we are divided in hearing Michael or not on the Cascio songs.

more about the analysis later on

These are all engineers, producers and musicians who worked on tours and/or in the studio with Michael when he was recording Bad, Thriller, Off The Wall, Dangerous, Invincible, HIStory and Blood On The Dance Floor, and they all reconfirmed their belief that the lead vocals were Michael’s voice on the Cascio tracks.[...]

THEIR BELIEF????!!!!!!!

yes it's a belief, a personal opinion as they are not doing any scientific comparisons (by all accounts they were asked to listen to the vocals and tell their opinions). however it's an educated/expert opinion.

For example if there was no scientific objective method / info and we went to court on a he said - she said basis and a fan said "I listened to MJ for 30 years and my ears are perfect and this is not MJ" and Bruce Sweedien said "Nope I hear MJ, it's him". His opinion would have more weight as he is 1) educated in music 2) worked with MJ 3) heard his vocals in every format etc etc.

Now let's start examining the comparison methods and "objective scientific test"

Listen to this little comparison i made quick- HOW CAN SOMEONE SAY THIS ISN'T THE SAME PERSON?? Gaaaaaaaah!!! Listen to it!! It's right there! Same voice!

I just listened to it, and it is... inconclusive.
It's also inconclusive because, like all of those comparisons, the best they can hope to achieve is prove that in 2007, MJ sounded a lot like somebody else whose main purpose in life is to sound like MJ.

It's completely and utterly damning. Utterly damning.

Again, it's the same thing will ALL of the comparisons you've made -- and you've made a bunch. All that such comparisons can prove is that "Jason Malachi, on this particular song, in this particular part, sounds a lot like Michael Jackson, on this particular song, in this particular part".

Here's a way I can explain this : suppose I produced a .wav file of myself singing, say, a part of "Privacy", where I managed to sound almost exactly like MJ on some parts of that song. Would this file prove that I am the one who actually sang "Privacy" on Invincible? Of course not.

First of all let me start by saying I appreciate all the time and effort that goes into such comparison audio and videos and I also respect everyone that finds them as convincing and damning however in the scientific sense they are subjective as the coming to a conclusion depends on our ears. Similarly in the legal sense they don't prove anything.

Better comparison examples are waveform/ frequency / pitch etc analysis ( that shows these colorful lines etc when comparing two different samples) that shows differences and similarities. However they are also inconclusive as they aren't complete.

The examples I have seen generally takes a word from a MJ song and same word from a Cascio song and compare them statistically and yes in some instances show a difference. YET it fails to answer whether this difference is statistically significant or completely acceptable as it doesn't include a range in the comparison.

All those comparison achieves to show a word from a Cascio song is in some extent (but we don't know how much) different than the same word in a MJ song.

Let's discuss a basic "voice recognition" programming and how it works

I have actually seen a very basic example of this and I think it's a common program to write. Basically what happens is you say a single word such as "hello" that the script compares to your voice (previously recorded) and shows a a message of "welcome john" if it matches and "you are not John" if it doesn't match.

Now the comparison sample here is the important point - even in this basic script it needed 10 recordings of "hello" for the computer to determine an average voice profile and error. The thing is we don't always sound exactly the same and with the 10 recordings and averaging and maximum - minimum points the program comes up with an "range". and that's the thing that allows you to answer questions of "how much difference is there?" and "is that difference an acceptable difference" or "it is significantly different"..

To say that they carried out a "scientific objective analysis" they need to account for that.

Now let's think about how they can probably do the analysis in this case and let's learn about reliability and validity.

For every scientific test you need to establish reliability and validity which means that 1) the test measures what it's supposed to measure and 2) gives consistent results in every time it's used.

How could they do this? Let's think about simple examples. If Michael had sing on 100 songs in his lifetime
- they could have taken 20 vocals and come up with the average comparison range sample and do it with another 20 vocals and then compare the two samples and to establish that regardless of the base songs used they come up with a good representative sample of MJ's voice.

- and then test it other songs that they haven't used in the determination of the comparison sample - if your test/ sample is correct such comparisons will result in "99% MJ" results.

Estate statement (see below) hints that they did such reliability and validity tests

[...]The Estate then retained one of the best-known forensic musicologists in the nation to listen to the vocals without any instrumental accompaniment(“a cappella&#8221, and to compare themwith a cappella vocals from previous Michael songs. This expert performed waveform analysis, an objective scientific test used to determine audio authenticity, on the Cascio tracks, as well as previously released tracks with Michael’s voice, and reported that ALL of the lead vocals analyzed (which included Cascio tracks) were the voice of Michael Jackson.] [...]

Bumper raises an interesting and equally important point

IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ANALYSIS COMPLETE YOU NEED TO COMPARE OTHER VOCALS TOO! IN THIS CASE, THEY NOWHERE MENTION THAT THEY COMPARED THE CASCIO TRACKS TO JASON MALACHI'S VOCALS! I BET THE AUDIOLOGISTS WOULD HAVE HAD QUITE A SURPRISE HAD THEY DONE THAT!

As one part of the reliability and validity determination is to determine "is this really measuring what it's supposed to measure" such comparisons is also generally done. For example in lie detector tests they will ask the person to lie on purpose to make sure that the test can detect the difference between a lie and the truth. So again most probably they would have run non-MJ vocals (I'm not saying they compared "Jason Malachi" vocals to MJ. I'm just saying a "non-mj vocal" who that might be is anyone's guess. ) to test and demonstrate that the program can successfully say "it's not MJ".

Reliability and validity are "must do" for every scientific test and research however their details are rarely expressed in detail in a written format. For example in most academic journals they would only be referred as "reliability and validity tests were done and it showed that the measures implemented are valid". However if needed the researchers / experts can provide the details of such tests (I'm doing my PhD and I had an article in peer review which has a single sentence about reliability and validity. one of the reviewers asked me to send him a copy of the tests/ data/ results to check on them. Those details weren't included in the published article)

I also want to say that without such determination such test will not be "scientific" and wouldn't hold in court.

Another nice point from Bumper

SECOND, THE SO CALLED WAVEFORM ANALYSIS IS NOT COMPLETE! INDEED, IF A SOUNDALIKE HAS AN EXTREMELY CLOSE VOCALS TO THE ORIGINAL ONE, THE WAVEFORM WILL MATCH AS IF THE SAME SINGER IS SINGING THEM.

one thing bumper is right is that yes it's possible for a sound alike to fool a test and there's also the possibility of error.

Now most common confidence interval is 95% in statistical tests - which means that there's a 5% chance of a false positive (in other words in our example the test saying it's MJ when it's not actually him singing).

Then we need to consider multiple songs / multiple tests - for example if you say Breaking News is not Michael but yet the test mistakenly said it's Michael - that's 5% false positive which is completely possible. But if you are saying that none of the vocals on 10 Cascio songs are MJ but yet the test said they are all MJ - it's a 100% error rate - which simply wouldn't happen.

What I'm saying is yes it's possible for such test mistakenly say it's MJ when it's not him but it will happen 1 in 10 instances and not in 10 in 10 instances.

A counter argument to this would be "what if the sound alike is good?"

Well yes but they need to be really really good so good that they can sound like MJ in 95% of the time.

Now we need to ask "Is Jason Malachi this good?" Well apparently he isn't. When we listen to "Jason Malachi songs" are we fooled to think it's MJ like 90% of the time? No. If he was that good then we wouldn't be having this discussion as a mass majority will be hearing "MJ" with a few claiming "there was something wrong" (again 1-2 songs can pass by but it wouldn't be all).

Plus we also need to account for the human factor - the forensic expert in this case - although the soundalike vocals could be quite similar they would have shown a pattern of difference which will be caught by the human in this case. (For example I conduct surveys during my research we add control questions etc and I can tell when a student just circles mid point in every question or didn't read the questions etc. Similarly I think a forensic expert can distinguish patterns of difference - which would raise a red flag)

Let's see how many will read this to the end

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Michael doesn't sound like himself on these records

No kidding. He sounds like himself on seven of them. Why is that?

You don't find it rather rude to answer a question for someone else that wasn't even directed to you?

Like I've said before, there are parts in the song, that don't sound like Michael, in any circumstance, ie. Stay. But I've also said that it's easier for me to accept the melodyne/processing claim, because of studio work I've done, and experience with such program on another's voice, whereas it isn't so easy for some of you. I'll just say I'm pro-Cascio tracks, only for the reason of legality, and the circumstances surrounding the issue, no one has been sued yet, not one lawsuit has been issued, by the family or anyone else. And it's been almost 3 months, also the prime suspect has denied his participation.

'It isn't so easy for some of you'???

I'll ask you again, what is your belief on these tracks? Do you believe it's Michael Jackson singing them? And how confident are you in your belief?

 

[lom kit]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

^for example there's a saying that if something happens and 100 people witness it and you ask them you'll get 100 different version of the events.

It's not just a saying, it's proven that something witnessed by many people, you'll get so many different versions as the witnesses are. But thats about something that happened in just few sec. So there is the shock factor and other influence, that lead to the many different versions.
in this case, it's about a song that we've heard dozen times as it was released online and thousand times already on cd. Not just once and never again.

Now we need to ask "Is Jason Malachi this good?" Well apparently he isn't.

well, listening to the previous songs like "get out of my mind" and etc., that have floating years ago and fooled alot of people, mostly none fans, he isn't.
Cause in those songs he only tried to sound like him. No software is used to make him intentionally to sound like Michael.
In this case, the singer's voice, "whoever he was" to fill the gaps in the vocals, not only tried to sing like MJ, but the voice was altered with software like "melodyne" to be same as MJ voice as possible. And they involuntary admided to have used such software, because "the demos were sooo bad, that the recorded vocals are been almost useless". Either the vocals are incomplete or in some parts inaudible, not clean and so on. They've been re-worked with software. and thats what this software is for, to make someone who can't sing, sound like a bird. It's done all the time. Britney is good example.


Let say you get an unexpected call from your parents or good friend from abroad, the other end of the world. The connection is really bad, distorted, voices sound off. but you still recognise the voice right from the start in the first few sec. and doesn't make you think you talked to someone else.
I know funny example, but it's the same. After so many years you get a feeling/intuition for this voice.
in crowd of people, you still can recognize a familiar voice, even you don't see the person right away.


Plus we also need to account for the human factor - the forensic expert in this case - although the soundalike vocals could be quite similar they would have shown a pattern of difference which will be caught by the human in this case.

Thats exactly what happened. thats why many have doubted the songs, including Sony. Different pronunciation of words, lame vibratio and so on. I've said many times, for untrained ears, the voice in these 3 songs is Michael Jacksons. The experts, the record company. And sorry, but I don't acknowledge the persons who worked with Michael on his albums, for trustful prove. People like T. riley and others worked on few albums, but for short period of time. I doubt they have listen to all songs so many times like us. We even can recognize from which period of time the vocals are recorded. Is it 80's Michael or 90's Michael or recent voice. Only B. Swedien can be the most plausible to belive. But I don't want to go with the list of who belive this is Michael and who not.


We can "accept" that some kind of forensic analysis have been done. But like you and Bumper and many others pointed very well out, that it's been done on the fly, without any deep comparisons. It was all to blind the fans. It was fishy from the beginning, when they published this statments. In the end it's about some songs and not about living or dead.


Let's see how many will read this to the end.
You as staff member know very well, very few read such long posts.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

in this case, it's about a song that we've heard dozen times as it was released online and thousand times already on cd. Not just once and never again.

the difference you say is true but it still my point is about the subjectivity of our hearing. For example if we asked people "what is the best vocal of Michael?" we would get different answers because it's subjective. Objective analysis would have included "facts" free of personal interpretations.

well, listening to the previous songs like "get out of my mind" and etc., that have floating years ago and fooled alot of people, mostly none fans, he isn't. Cause in those songs he only tried to sound like him. No software is used to make him intentionally to sound like Michael.

I think such alterations is also possible to determine. It's possible to say whether a photo has been photoshoped or not, similarly when running an vocal I think they would be able to tell whether it's raw or processed vocals. Edit : The statement / article also mentions that the comparison were done with "raw a capella vocals" and not the processed vocals.

Thats exactly what happened. thats why many have doubted the songs, including Sony. Different pronunciation of words, lame vibratio and so on

By going with what is said, they didn't doubt them initially. Concerns were only raised after some time and then they did some tests. You cannot say this equals to "doubt on Sony's part" because legally speaking if someone raised any concerns about the the vocals the most logical thing to do would be make sure that they are legit so that they wouldn't have any legal problems in the future. It's more like "covering their bases" and "making sure that such claims weren't true".

We can "accept" that some kind of forensic analysis have been done. But like you and Bumper and many others pointed very well out, that it's been done on the fly, without any deep comparisons

To correct it - I said the "fan comparisons" are not deep or complete. If we say the estate/ sony statement is true and that they indeed made "scientific objective analysis" it would have to include building a comparative range sample, testing it's reliability, validity and then running it multiple times for all the songs and interpreting the results etc. That would be a deep analysis.

It was all to blind the fans.

and it doesn't need to be available to public. I gave the example before Trident says "4 out of 5 dentists recommend chewing sugarless gum" yet they give no information about how they come to this conclusion (no details about who they surveyed, what questions they asked, who did the calculation etc). But indeed such survey exists and if "legally challenged" they can show evidence to back up their claims.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Rude is when you insult people. I did not insult you, I said what you actually do believe. You believe it is Michael because in your eyes it is purely legally done. And for the moment the Cascio tracks are legally proven to be authentic, I do not debate that. I debate the way it was done and the reasons why and by whom they were questioned.

Read the article I posted and you'll see that even SONY doubted the tracks! They got duped because of the objective audiologists results and they decided to release the tracks despite their own doubting ears! However, the complete objective analysis was not carried out. It's so obvious when you read the article.

On a personal note, this is a public forum and anyone can answer questions that are raised even if they are addressed to you or me or anyone else. If you prefer a private discussion with anyone on this board you can use the pms.

Insults aren't the only thing that can be considered as rude. You wouldn't consider a similar outburst from one of your students, while in class, as rude? Even if you asked the question to another student?

I don't believe in the tracks because of what the Cascio's said, which you initially assumed. I just said everything as to why I'm behind the records, none of which had anything to do with what the Cascio's said. More so for the fact that the initial accusers have yet to file any legal action, so far there hasn't been a case for consumer fraud. The person said to be on the songs, denies any inclusion on the album, and mostly there isn't anything conclusive to support the doubts of authenticity.

No kidding. He sounds like himself on seven of them. Why is that?



'It isn't so easy for some of you'???

I'll ask you again, what is your belief on these tracks? Do you believe it's Michael Jackson singing them? And how confident are you in your belief?

Well, for one, I thought I made clear that there are instances that Michael doesn't sound like himself. KYHU and BN are some examples of the songs I have complete confidence in, in terms of being doubt-free, for me. Not to mention that we've only heard 5 of supposedly 12 songs.


As for my view on the songs, just see above, in the response to Bumper. Not only that, but like I've said before, I feel Michael on these songs, and having experience in a studio, production and mixing, I am aware of what processing, melodyne, and vocalizing tools can do to ones voice. So when you combine that, with everything else I've said, you'll see I believe these songs are Michael and why I continue to have that belief.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I don't believe in the tracks because of what the Cascio's said, which you initially assumed. I just said everything as to why I'm behind the records, none of which had anything to do with what the Cascio's said. More so for the fact that the initial accusers have yet to file any legal action, so far there hasn't been a case for consumer fraud. The person said to be on the songs, denies any inclusion on the album, and mostly there isn't anything conclusive to support the doubts of authenticity.

Right. So what do you believe? Do you believe the songs are legitimate?

 

[azsummergirl]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

I think the loss of the soothing tone in the voice was intentional to show the intensity leading up to the climax of the song. Jim Cummings is an incredibly talented impersonator in many songs replacing the villains, like Christopher Lloyd in the film "Anastasia". Jim Cummings did the song "In the Dark of the Night" in place of Christopher Lloyd. Here's the song in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1vDqgsbyhQ

Again, my point is why hire someone like Jason Malachi where people like Jim Cummings with an extremely versatile vocal range would do a better impression?

why use jason malachi instead of a better imitator? i swear, this is the one argument that makes the least sense to me, i can't even wrap my head around it. The LESS it sounds like michael, the more believable it is that it's michael?

i just don't get it. and i don't know why they didn't use a better imitator. probably because they're a bunch of idiots/scam artists. or maybe because other imitators weren't so willing to sell out.

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

why use jason malachi instead of a better imitator? i swear, this is the one argument that makes the least sense to me, i can't even wrap my head around it. The LESS it sounds like michael, the more believable it is that it's michael?

i just don't get it. and i don't know why they didn't use a better imitator. probably because they're a bunch of idiots/scam artists. or maybe because other imitators weren't so willing to sell out.

But on what basis do you have to say that Malachi would?

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Insults aren't the only thing that can be considered as rude. You wouldn't consider a similar outburst from one of your students, while in class, as rude? Even if you asked the question to another student?

I don't believe in the tracks because of what the Cascio's said, which you initially assumed. I just said everything as to why I'm behind the records, none of which had anything to do with what the Cascio's said. More so for the fact that the initial accusers have yet to file any legal action, so far there hasn't been a case for consumer fraud. The person said to be on the songs, denies any inclusion on the album, and mostly there isn't anything conclusive to support the doubts of authenticity.




Well, for one, I thought I made clear that there are instances that Michael doesn't sound like himself. KYHU and BN are some examples of the songs I have complete confidence in, in terms of being doubt-free, for me. Not to mention that we've only heard 5 of supposedly 12 songs.


As for my view on the songs, just see above, in the response to Bumper. Not only that, but like I've said before, I feel Michael on these songs, and having experience in a studio, production and mixing, I am aware of what processing, melodyne, and vocalizing tools can do to ones voice. So when you combine that, with everything else I've said, you'll see I believe these songs are Michael and why I continue to have that belief.

But your beliefs haven't always been so 'confident'. You believe something is 'up'. Or you did do. So at what stage did you begin to believe everything the Estate said and at what stage did you begin to believe Michael was on these tracks?

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

But your beliefs haven't always been so 'confident'. You believe something is 'up'. Or you did do. So at what stage did you begin to believe everything the Estate said and at what stage did you begin to believe Michael was on these tracks?

When weren't my beliefs confident? When the initial stream BN stream had leaked, the one that Sony admittedly screwed up on? Or when I said that something is missing in Michael's voice, which I also contributed at one point, to the processing and vocalizing? Whatever the case may be, I've always believed it was Michael on these songs, and the songs I did question in regards to vocals, I've never been willing to say it wasn't Michael, my opinion was just reinforced when pitches began to be altered on certain songs, to benefit the dispute. And statements began to get released. I ask, when and in what context did I say I believed "something's up"?

 

[samhabib]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

When weren't my beliefs confident? When the initial stream BN stream had leaked, the one that Sony admittedly screwed up on? Or when I said that something is missing in Michael's voice, which I also contributed at one point, to the processing and vocalizing? Whatever the case may be, I've always believed it was Michael on these songs, and the songs I did question in regards to vocals, I've never been willing to say it wasn't Michael, my opinion was just reinforced when pitches began to be altered on certain songs, to benefit the dispute. And statements began to get released. I ask, when and in what context did I say I believed "something's up"?

You categorically claimed "something is up" regarding Monster. In fact, your original assertions were that the Estate could easily be lying because the Jacksons were involved with other litigation.

So, at what point did you begin to believe everything the Estate said and damn everything the Jacksons said?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

First of all allow me to thank you for taking the time to read my posts and points that I raised. At least we have some common grounds to discuss the matter by taking into account each other's arguments and try to logically answer them rather than calling people names.

Now, as we have the common ground for discussion I am going to take into consideration your counterarguments and doctoral apporach of examining the points that are discussed here.

The recent discussion about the comparisons - analysis and proof prompted me to write this which is a combination of a basic knowledge of voice recognition and good enough of knowledge of scientific research and statistic basics - combined with a little of legal info.

First, with all due respect, let's agree that having basic knowledge in voice recognition couldn't be taken seriously in such a debate contrary to your knowledge related to law.

As far as I am concerned, although I am not a musician, languages are my profession --and that includes linguistics, phonetics, phonology, stress, accent, and all the related components. In other words, my daily job is to correct adults' accents, which I am extremely sensitive to.

For that part only in all honesty there are some words in the songs "BN" and "MONSTER" that are not stressed the way Michael stresses them. In addition to the misplaced stress there is the issue with the voice timbre.

Back to the stress. This latter is something that a software cannot correct or recognize as they are built so that they take into account native speakers from different regions of the country or the world. In this very case only the ear can be the judge, not a software despite all the artificial intelligence-like computer programs. For more details about that pm me I'll explain it, since this is not a debate here.


Second, as a professional translator, it is impossible to translate a document without objective profound scientific research. For example, if I want to translate a chemical composition of a drug I need to make a thorough research of all the biochemical formulas and appropriate terms.

The same goes for a legal contract. In order to translate a legal document, a translator must first understand the judicial system with appropriate terms before translating it into another language. In other words, a translator's job is 90% of the time objective research, and only then, after acquiring enough terminology and having absorbed the subject that he can type the translation. In all modesty, as a translator, that is my job too, which means that I am extremely sensitive to the manner a research is conducted, not to mention the reason of such a research (in our case, according to the article I posted, people from SONY most probably had/have clearly questioned those tracks).

Third and final, as far as legal matters are concerned, of course that if the tracks happen to be fake, it means that it would require an extremely elaborated and difficult to believe forgery. Yet, it is not mission impossible.

Let's first cover some bases

Let's.

not true IMO. ears / our hearings are subjective - not objective. for example there's a saying that if something happens and 100 people witness it and you ask them you'll get 100 different version of the events. And we also see how our hearing is subjective as we are divided in hearing Michael or not on the Cascio songs.

As far as hearing is concerned, in case of language accent emphasized on the words I provided in earlier posts, the hearing is not subjective. The hearing is objective for the following reason: the ear is acustomed to recognize Michael's accent on all previous songs and uses it automatically as a reference already.

On the Cascio tracks that accent on some words is replaced by an alien accent to the ear. I also explained that people with smaller range frequency ability to hear won't hear it clearly due to their mother tongues probably or due to other reasons related to the sensitivity of their ear. That actually explains why some people can be duped and some not.

What is subjective however is our taste. We like or dislike what we hear, but we cannot deny that something is as a matter of fact different.

As far as witnessing is concerned, the comparison is absolutely not relevant in our case. Before witnessing something, we first must hear or see it. What we hear or see is the same for everyone. But what we witness in our head is different! And that's why the story told by the witnesses will differ.

In other words hearing or seeing is general truth, whereas witnessing is individual truth. Indeed, if you and I hear someone say "Break a leg!". We both will hear the general truth, i.e. what the person said. But our own interpretation will differ. You will as a native speaker pretend that the person who said "break a leg!" wished "good luck!", while I as a non native (not knowing the expression) will most probably pretend that the person who said "break a leg" was extremely impolite and mean! Hence, we will not have 2 different hearings, but two different interpretations of the same hearing. So the 100 witnesses with 100 stories isn't really a result of 100 truths, but of the same truth seen from different angles and perspectives.

In the case of the Cascio tracks we all hear the same Cascio tracks (general truth), but what our brain witnesses depends on the sensitivity of our ears (difference of opinion influenced by many factors). All in all, the truth is not both believers' and non-believers'. The truth is one and in order to obtain it we must deploy all what we've got to prove the truth as it is presented to us with our decades trained ears.

more about the analysis later on

ok

yes it's a belief, a personal opinion as they are not doing any scientific comparisons (by all accounts they were asked to listen to the vocals and tell their opinions). however it's an educated/expert opinion.

With all due respect, they are not necessarily Michael Jackson's fans and don't know him by heart. Therefore, their, as precious as they may be, educated ears' opinion are not as educated as our fans' ears' educated opinion.

In addition, the article that I posted clearly hides the name of those who questioned the tracks. Which means that some educated ears were there and questioned the tracks. We should not neglect that.

For example if there was no scientific objective method / info and we went to court on a he said - she said basis and a fan said "I listened to MJ for 30 years and my ears are perfect and this is not MJ" and Bruce Sweedien said "Nope I hear MJ, it's him". His opinion would have more weight as he is 1) educated in music 2) worked with MJ 3) heard his vocals in every format etc etc.

IF, and that's a big IF, we went to court we fans would lose the case. I do not deny that.

However, the court abides by the rules of the court according to the law that are implemented -which actually makes it extremely rigid. In this case you clearly state that the court would give more credit to Bruce Swedien thanks to his credentials solely. Basically, although I understand the court's decision to believe more Bruce than an unknown fan, we should not neglect that a fan who spent decades listening Michael could be less wrong than an engineer who is probably not as fan and who in those 20 years met Michael on several occasions only.

In other words, imagine you as a lawyer work on a case of your client on a regular basis for several years. Despite the fact that you know your client's case, it does not mean that you know the client himself so well as someone from outside who followed all his gestures, mimics, voice, manners, and who would probably be a more suitable lawyer had he or she have access to the job you do. Looking from that perspective, Teddy, Bruce or any non-fan audiologist would not necessarily be more competent than faithful fans' ears. The only problem of this latter is his/her lack of credentials to defend their point of view or the truth they see in court. So the opinion (twisted truth) coming from the strongest, smartest or more elitist will always prevail.

Now let's start examining the comparison methods and "objective scientific test"









First of all let me start by saying I appreciate all the time and effort that goes into such comparison audio and videos and I also respect everyone that finds them as convincing and damning however in the scientific sense they are subjective as the coming to a conclusion depends on our ears. Similarly in the legal sense they don't prove anything.

First, our ears clearly hear the similarities, which is not a subjective opinion, but a fact. As I explained above, our ears are not less objective than a software unable to deliver all the accuracy we are looking for. The software will do its best, but in the end it is as subjective as our ears since it does not take into account the word stress as a mistake or as a mismatch

Second, legal sense will depend on the people who have credentials. But as I stated earlier, people with credentials, although they know their job, they don't necessarily know the man from the same angle many others do.

Better comparison examples are waveform/ frequency / pitch etc analysis ( that shows these colorful lines etc when comparing two different samples) that shows differences and similarities. However they are also inconclusive as they aren't complete.

The examples I have seen generally takes a word from a MJ song and same word from a Cascio song and compare them statistically and yes in some instances show a difference. YET it fails to answer whether this difference is statistically significant or completely acceptable as it doesn't include a range in the comparison.

All those comparison achieves to show a word from a Cascio song is in some extent (but we don't know how much) different than the same word in a MJ song.

Of course. Yet, had they been aware of Malachi from the very beginning they would first start the tests with his voice, not with Michael's voice as a reference.

Let's discuss a basic "voice recognition" programming and how it works

I have actually seen a very basic example of this and I think it's a common program to write. Basically what happens is you say a single word such as "hello" that the script compares to your voice (previously recorded) and shows a a message of "welcome john" if it matches and "you are not John" if it doesn't match.

Now the comparison sample here is the important point - even in this basic script it needed 10 recordings of "hello" for the computer to determine an average voice profile and error. The thing is we don't always sound exactly the same and with the 10 recordings and averaging and maximum - minimum points the program comes up with an "range". and that's the thing that allows you to answer questions of "how much difference is there?" and "is that difference an acceptable difference" or "it is significantly different"..

To say that they carried out a "scientific objective analysis" they need to account for that.

Now let's think about how they can probably do the analysis in this case and let's learn about reliability and validity.

For every scientific test you need to establish reliability and validity which means that 1) the test measures what it's supposed to measure and 2) gives consistent results in every time it's used.

How could they do this? Let's think about simple examples. If Michael had sing on 100 songs in his lifetime
- they could have taken 20 vocals and come up with the average comparison range sample and do it with another 20 vocals and then compare the two samples and to establish that regardless of the base songs used they come up with a good representative sample of MJ's voice.

- and then test it other songs that they haven't used in the determination of the comparison sample - if your test/ sample is correct such comparisons will result in "99% MJ" results.

Estate statement (see below) hints that they did such reliability and validity tests

All what you explain is correct and purely scientific, however, all the figures you use are speculative as they serve as a fictious example. The results have never been published, and that is my concern.

Bumper raises an interesting and equally important point



As one part of the reliability and validity determination is to determine "is this really measuring what it's supposed to measure" such comparisons is also generally done. For example in lie detector tests they will ask the person to lie on purpose to make sure that the test can detect the difference between a lie and the truth. So again most probably they would have run non-MJ vocals (I'm not saying they compared "Jason Malachi" vocals to MJ. I'm just saying a "non-mj vocal" who that might be is anyone's guess. ) to test and demonstrate that the program can successfully say "it's not MJ".

Reliability and validity are "must do" for every scientific test and research however their details are rarely expressed in detail in a written format. For example in most academic journals they would only be referred as "reliability and validity tests were done and it showed that the measures implemented are valid". However if needed the researchers / experts can provide the details of such tests (I'm doing my PhD and I had an article in peer review which has a single sentence about reliability and validity. one of the reviewers asked me to send him a copy of the tests/ data/ results to check on them. Those details weren't included in the published article)

I also want to say that without such determination such test will not be "scientific" and wouldn't hold in court.

You are explaining what they should have done. But we fans do not have access to what was actually done. Even if they did as seriously as you are explaining it here, let's bear in mind that if the imitator is good enough, he could fool the softwares they used. Take the example of George Michael's imitator. If they had taken those vocals, I am certain that the software would have almost a perfect match, had the recordings of "jesus to a child" been done in a studio.

Another nice point from Bumper



one thing bumper is right is that yes it's possible for a sound alike to fool a test and there's also the possibility of error.

Now most common confidence interval is 95% in statistical tests - which means that there's a 5% chance of a false positive (in other words in our example the test saying it's MJ when it's not actually him singing).

Then we need to consider multiple songs / multiple tests - for example if you say Breaking News is not Michael but yet the test mistakenly said it's Michael - that's 5% false positive which is completely possible. But if you are saying that none of the vocals on 10 Cascio songs are MJ but yet the test said they are all MJ - it's a 100% error rate - which simply wouldn't happen.

What I'm saying is yes it's possible for such test mistakenly say it's MJ when it's not him but it will happen 1 in 10 instances and not in 10 in 10 instances.

A counter argument to this would be "what if the sound alike is good?"

Well yes but they need to be really really good so good that they can sound like MJ in 95% of the time.

Scientifically speaking, if an imitator sings all the songs within the same frequency range, not adventuring himself too much beyond his abilities of copying the original voice, yes, he could record a dozen of songs and fool the software. It is not a miracle, it is a method and a rule to respect - to know his limits and not to attempt foolish and more difficult melodies to sing.


.

Now we need to ask "Is Jason Malachi this good?" Well apparently he isn't. When we listen to "Jason Malachi songs" are we fooled to think it's MJ like 90% of the time? No. If he was that good then we wouldn't be having this discussion as a mass majority will be hearing "MJ" with a few claiming "there was something wrong" (again 1-2 songs can pass by but it wouldn't be all).

I disagree. As I said above. If Malachi respects the rule of not going beyond his capacities and stay within the same frequency on a dozen of songs, he could easily record a dozen if not hundreds of songs within the
frequency where his voice sounds the most as Michael's and dupe people. He'd probably never attempt to sing songs such as "Speechless" or "Butterflies", but some easier songs would be without a problem for him.

Plus we also need to account for the human factor - the forensic expert in this case - although the soundalike vocals could be quite similar they would have shown a pattern of difference which will be caught by the human in this case. (For example I conduct surveys during my research we add control questions etc and I can tell when a student just circles mid point in every question or didn't read the questions etc. Similarly I think a forensic expert can distinguish patterns of difference - which would raise a red flag)

Let's see how many will read this to the end

This IS all about what it is! The pattern HAS been caught by the human. The tracks are as a matter of fact questioned and the analysis carried out. What the machine did not catch, the human ear did.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Insults aren't the only thing that can be considered as rude. You wouldn't consider a similar outburst from one of your students, while in class, as rude? Even if you asked the question to another student?



I don't believe in the tracks because of what the Cascio's said, which you initially assumed. I just said everything as to why I'm behind the records, none of which had anything to do with what the Cascio's said. More so for the fact that the initial accusers have yet to file any legal action, so far there hasn't been a case for consumer fraud. The person said to be on the songs, denies any inclusion on the album, and mostly there isn't anything conclusive to support the doubts of authenticity.







Well, for one, I thought I made clear that there are instances that Michael doesn't sound like himself. KYHU and BN are some examples of the songs I have complete confidence in, in terms of being doubt-free, for me. Not to mention that we've only heard 5 of supposedly 12 songs.


As for my view on the songs, just see above, in the response to Bumper. Not only that, but like I've said before, I feel Michael on these songs, and having experience in a studio, production and mixing, I am aware of what processing, melodyne, and vocalizing tools can do to ones voice. So when you combine that, with everything else I've said, you'll see I believe these songs are Michael and why I continue to have that belief.

You are playing with words.

We are not in the class. It is a public place where everyone can answer. The class rules do not apply here.

You seem to forget that you called everyone a hypocrite, but when someone is intervening in a public forum you find it rude?

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

You are playing with words.

We are not in the class. It is a public place where everyone can answer. The class rules do not apply here.

You seem to forget that you called everyone a hypocrite, but when someone is intervening in a public forum you find it rude?

Show me, I recall saying certain thought's were hypocritical, I don't recall specifically calling anyone a hypocrite though.


It doesn't have to be a class, it's just general decency. You wouldn't like it if anyone answered a question on your behalf, especially when your answer wasn't even correct, but whatever.

You categorically claimed "something is up" regarding Monster. In fact, your original assertions were that the Estate could easily be lying because the Jacksons were involved with other litigation.

So, at what point did you begin to believe everything the Estate said and damn everything the Jacksons said?

Lying about what? Show me these posts you're referring to.


Again, where have I damned the Jackson's and their statements? I've given examples as to why their word is just as reliable as the Cascio's and Sony's. I've shown previous examples of the parties involved, on The Jackson's side, of their shadyness, when you and others accused the Cascio's, Teddy Riley, and other's involved as being shady themselves and having motives to lie. I've always said the Jackson's and their word shouldn't be taken as gospel, the same way I said neither should the Estate's because they have yet to show any results, or anything to back their claim either.

But if you read my post, this has nothing to do with what The Jacksons or The Estate said, but more so the fact that there hasn't been any legal action, the supposed voice behind the songs (according to you) denying his affiliation with these records, and my own personal feelings.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

Show me, I recall saying certain thought's were hypocritical, I don't recall specifically calling anyone a hypocrite though.


It doesn't have to be a class, it's just general decency. You wouldn't like it if anyone answered a question on your behalf, especially when your answer wasn't even correct, but whatever.

Here is one of your posts in the thread "All about the Jason dude" (so yes, you are a rude person):

It's mind-boggling how some of you don't realize how hypocritical you are. To the point where you call the songs on the Michael album, Jason Malachi songs, without any substantial proof to back your claims. You see, legally, Sony has the advantage, as well as the estate, they've given a response, and by law, they are innocent until proven guilty. Now here's where the hypocrisy comes in, many of you have already made up your minds, regarding the songs, based off of youtube videos, speculation and rumor. Now I ask you all this, what's the difference between calling these songs "Jason Malachi Songs" (without any actual proof, might i add) and the masses calling Michael a ********, despite what was said in a court of law, for so many years, and to this day? Please explain to me what the difference is, the two situations are different in terms of the seriousness of the matter, but at the core, you're all doing the same thing they did.

 

[ivy]

Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

First, with all due respect, let's agree that having basic knowledge in voice recognition couldn't be taken seriously in such a debate contrary to your knowledge related to law.

Well I'll call this quite unnecessary and even impolite as I already stated that my knowledge in that subject is "basic" and later on explained what I know and how I know so that it can be evaluated by you (and rest of the readers) accordingly. and you did evaluate it later on and said "All what you explain is correct and purely scientific". So apparently I wasn't that off in my "basic" knowledge. Plus as I didn't claim to be an expert and that my word is gospel , I think this belittling of "couldn't be taken seriously" was quite premature.

Anyway moving on

As far as I am concerned, although I am not a musician, languages are my profession --and that includes linguistics, phonetics, phonology, stress, accent, and all the related components.

And I'm completely unknowledgeable in this areas. Therefore I wouldn't even dare to argue about you in any aspect of what you are saying. I'll just read and take your word for it. I'll ask you some questions to better understand some points.

For that part only in all honesty there are some words in the songs "BN" and "MONSTER" that are not stressed the way Michael stresses them. In addition to the misplaced stress there is the issue with the voice timbre.

Question: Do you account for fitting the words to the music hence the difference?

I don't know if I'm being clear but let me try to give examples (and please correct my terms because I'm sure I'll be wrong)

- the band that I worked with wrote a song about a stupid girl trying to act quite intelligent and the song had a line that included the word "IQ". now while singing they found out saying IQ was very hard (it would kinda break his momentum -not a word that easily flows) so the lead vocalist sung it like I (c) Q - not the way he usually says it but changed to fit

- another song they did had a music that goes like din-din-din-dindini -din (imagine that if possible :cheeky and therefore the vocalist sang all the words by dividing them into syllables such as Ha-pi-ness (with brief pauses in between). a music reviewer even said that "it sounded like "a child learning to read" is singing the song" - obviously it's not the way how this vocalist speaks or sings and it was done only in that song to fit the music.

(in our case, according to the article I posted, people from SONY most probably had/have clearly questioned those tracks).

not necessarily and I mentioned that in my previous post. That article you post says that the doubts weren't raised until the song selection and then the tests were done. To me it doesn't sound like it was a doubt that always existed in Sony's mind.

If you allow me to put on my legal and business hat and for a moment and assume that I ran the Estate/ Sony - if someone came to me saying "I don't think those vocals are Michael" and even though I thought that "I can swear on my life that the vocals are Michael's" , the business and legally sound thing to do will be to make some tests and to authenticate them.

Because if you go with the worst case scenario of -vocals being fake and being sued - , the only way to get out of it will be to show the court that they did their best and that their examination has showed the vocals to be authentic. these are the good faith and due diligence principles. Legally speaking if someone had raised the authenticity issue and they did nothing to determine if that was really the case , they would be in more trouble (in the worst case scenario).

As far as hearing is concerned, in case of language accent emphasized on the words I provided in earlier posts, the hearing is not subjective. The hearing is objective for the following reason: the ear is acustomed to recognize Michael's accent on all previous songs and uses it automatically as a reference already.

Question : I sound quite similar (but not the same) to my mom and sometimes our relatives mix us up when we speak even my dad will go "honey is that you?" and I'll go "no dad it's me". so I guess you'll see why I have trouble with our "wonderfully trained ears" concept. In this instance why they wouldn't be able to recognize us then?

However, the court abides by the rules of the court according to the law that are implemented -which actually makes it extremely rigid. In this case you clearly state that the court would give more credit to Bruce Swedien thanks to his credentials solely. Basically, although I understand the court's decision to believe more Bruce than an unknown fan, we should not neglect that a fan who spent decades listening Michael could be less wrong than an engineer who is probably not as fan and who in those 20 years met Michael on several occasions only.

So are we saying that Bruce Swedien who recorded MJ in all his solo albums, who spent countless hours in the studio with Micheal, who did 91 mixes to Billie Jean would be inferior than a fan? and this is not about "credentials" it's about the "first hand experience". Yes you could have listened to the finished product "mix 2" of Billie Jean a million times in your life, however you don't have the first hand experience of Bruce Swedien. Regardless of how you roll the dice , Bruce wins.

In other words, imagine you as a lawyer work on a case of your client on a regular basis for several years. Despite the fact that you know your client's case, it does not mean that you know the client himself so well as someone from outside who followed all his gestures, mimics, voice, manners, and who would probably be a more suitable lawyer had he or she have access to the job you do. Looking from that perspective, Teddy, Bruce or any non-fan audiologist would not necessarily be more competent than faithful fans' ears.

Well this is only about Michael's voice and not his personality, gestures etc. Plus following MJ for whole life wouldn't equal to knowing him perfectly. Actually again as Teddy, Bruce has spent considerable amount of time with Michael (during recording) they would be better in that regard as well.

For example Kathy Griffin in one of her stand-ups mention meeting Michael in an environment where there were few people that he knew and was close to present and he spoke with a normal (meaning deeper and not the regular high voice that we know) voice. (this is mentioned by several other people) so what if that's the real Michael and what we have seen is what he wanted us to see? In short even from that aspect people that knew Michael personally would triumph over any fan.

All what you explain is correct and purely scientific, however, all the figures you use are speculative as they serve as a fictious example. The results have never been published, and that is my concern.

Well it's obvious that what I said are examples as I used the words "let's say - if" etc. However the process would be the same. Plus in scientific research/ testing there are minimum requirements in determining sample sizes, what is needed to say it's reliable and valid etc.

so regardless of whether we see it or not , a "scientific research" would have o fit into that criteria or wouldn't be scientific or hold in court.

You are explaining what they should have done. But we fans do not have access to what was actually done

again if those weren't done it wouldn't stand scientific research requirements and wouldn't hold in court. Epic / Estate mentioned these tests over and over again, Riley called out people to go to court several times. If those tests didn't exist, if those tests didn't show what they said they show and if those tests wouldn't hold in court they wouldn't be making this such definitive statements or include "questionable songs" in the album IMO.

I disagree. As I said above. If Malachi respects the rule of not going beyond his capacities and stay within the same frequency on a dozen of songs, he could easily record a dozen if not hundreds of songs within the
frequency where his voice sounds the most as Michael's and dupe people. He'd probably never attempt to sing songs such as "Speechless" or "Butterflies", but some easier songs would be without a problem for him.

I already acknowledged that error and fooling the test will be possible by a good imitator. However I still do not think Jason fits this bill - mainly because the "doubters" claim "the vocals sound absolutely nothing like Michael" , "it's 100 % Jason" - if it's that certain and that obvious then you should also have to agree that Jason wouldn't be able to pull out such thing. (Because the claim here is that you can hear in 100% certainty that it's Jason but the scientific test would fail 100% of the time and say it's Michael - not a realistic scenario)

Now if the main opinion was "I hear Michael in some parts and some parts sound like Jason" then I would say that it might be a possibility that Jason is the imposter vocal because it would satisfy a) why the tests would say it's Michael (as in parts Jason was able to mimic Michael good enough to fool the test), and b) why at the same time it would raise doubts.

It's a numbers game really
- If it was that obvious that the Jason was the vocal - the test would have determined it and it wouldn't have a 100% error rate
- if Jason had the great ability to mimic MJ - less people would have been suspicious of the vocals.

So again from the "doubters" point of view the argument should have been "I hear Michael in some parts and some parts sound like Jason and therefore I believe Jason is the person doing the all vocals -sometimes good sometimes bad"

and from the "believers" point of view the argument would have been "I hear Michael in some parts and some parts are legit supporting / backing vocals".