Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

Well, i dont trust my ears. If pentum tricked me, so be it, but i think i heard MJ and thats all i know.
 
If false, Pentum was there pushing buttons. Too bad hes not as pro as Eddie (the master button pusher)
 
It's funny that "doubters" have problems distinguishing MJ in that song :p
 
wait . . . i have a question. @ivy, didn't you say you don't listen to leaks, which is why you haven't heard all 12 cascio tracks? why did you decide to listen to this new song that Pentum leaked, but not ok with the 12 cascio tracks? just curious what the difference is, to you.
 
I answered that question before (and Grent got lost in my answer :p) difference = stolen and involved in legal battle.
 
I see. If this were really MJ wouldn't it have to be stolen or illegal as well? The only legal MJ track is the kind on an officially released Cd. Am I wrong? Just seems like a weird distinction to make. A leak is, by definition, not legal.
 
I wrote before it was not a "morals police" position (legal / illegal , right/wrong) and I guess people didn't understand what I meant.

So if I have to spell it, in an environment where Sony is suing people and sending cease and desists left and right, I'm not touching it.
 
Ok I see. So I could understand not downloading it, sure. But would u listen to it on youtube? Or soundcloud? Or hell, on a tape player that someone else pushed "play" on? Would u, could u in a box? Would u could u, with a fox?
 
also include asking for links / sharing links to that as well , not doing it.

I listened to some leaks on youtube actually. for the future I might or might not listen to them on youtube. let's say that the more I hear about legal stuff, the more-motivated I am to stay away from them totally.
 
Sigh. If I could get Jason to go to your house and sing "fall in love" for you,live, I would. But that's not going to happen so I guess you'll just have to hear it for the first time when they release "michael-part 2". I will look forward to your thoughts on that particular track, whenever that magical day arrives.
 
ivy said:
I had a long post about all the research about humans ability for voice identification and it really sucked :) people aren't really good in voice identification.

Two factors were found to be significant
1. how often the person was exposed to the voice (not long but often)
2. some people such as musical ability were better than the rest



from that research perspective it shouldn't. Because when people were given a name and ask to identify that person from a bunch of speakers and actually played an impersonator, they would identify the impersonator as the real thing. It's also why law no longer accepts such voice identifications to stand. From the research it shows if the people are lead , they will hear things that aren't there or real.
Click to expand...

I agree on this one. I also posted a long post about audio forensic and the accuracy of recognizing someone's voice. It's practically impossible to be sure 100% whose voice they hear, especially if the voice has been altered by the studio processings, not to mention that we are talking about singing voice here.

Indeed people can be easily led to hear one person or another, hence the subjectivity. As Grent said, the officials can lead to believe that we hear MJ's voice on the same level as the non-officials can lead that we hear someone else. I've never denied that. Pentum's game is a good example, because we try to be objective but we can't because we expect to be tricked by the game itself.

It is even more difficult to determine whose voice it is when we clearly hear that there are some copy-pastes from MJ's previous tracks added to the newly heard tracks.

Now, as the observation from that perspective is quite blurry, we should pay attention to other details and characteristics that the voice produces. My intention is not to sound like a broken record, but to be honest what are the things we're left with if not the pronunciation of some sounds which will depend on the speaker. If we can compare those characteristics with previous tracks and if we find similarities then we could indeed draw some objective conclusions. For example if we listen to George Bush speaking, the way he pronounces the words are common to people from Texas, not Alaska. That's an objective observation.

Set aside the pronunciation, what is all bugging us is the timbre. Some hear Michael, some don't. I can agree that for the timbre it is much more difficult to be objective (see Pentum's game), yet some characteristics of soundalikes betray them at one point or another (power, high vs low tones, grit/husk, breath (snort included), stability in voice vs shaky voice, vibrato, etc. In order to draw less subjective conclusions, we should listen to the maximum of that voice available in order to try to detect usual or unusual characteristics compared to the voice we all have been used to - Michael's.

Now, I have a question to all, do you hear two different voices or exactly the same one:

on (at 0:54 - 0:57 ...she cries inside...)

[youtube]aRtOJTo8GT8[/youtube]

and on (at 1:52 - 1:53 ...my life...)

[youtube]8_oQPOdH9L4&feature=related[/youtube]

p.s. @Pentum, I don't have the files on my laptop, could you isolate those two and put side aside in a loop on soundcloud please?
 
Dorian said:
It's funny that "doubters" have problems distinguishing MJ in that song :p
Click to expand...

i had no problem distinguishing things in this track, right from the bat i knew it was fake, had nothing to do with the voice, just the instrumentation alone told me everything, as far the voice, MJ is there, just edited to hell so that past words could make new melodies, imo doesnt matter if ur a doubter or a non doubter, ur ears can fool you
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
I agree on this one. I also posted a long post about audio forensic and the accuracy of recognizing someone's voice. It's practically impossible to be sure 100% whose voice they hear, especially if the voice has been altered by the studio processings, not to mention that we are talking about singing voice here.

Indeed people can be easily led to hear one person or another, hence the subjectivity. As Grent said, the officials can lead to believe that we hear MJ's voice on the same level as the non-officials can lead that we hear someone else. I've never denied that. Pentum's game is a good example, because we try to be objective but we can't because we expect to be tricked by the game itself.

It is even more difficult to determine whose voice it is when we clearly hear that there are some copy-pastes from MJ's previous tracks added to the newly heard tracks.

Now, as the observation from that perspective is quite blurry, we should pay attention to other details and characteristics that the voice produces. My intention is not to sound like a broken record, but to be honest what are the things we're left with if not the pronunciation of some sounds which will depend on the speaker. If we can compare those characteristics with previous tracks and if we find similarities then we could indeed draw some objective conclusions. For example if we listen to George Bush speaking, the way he pronounces the words are common to people from Texas, not Alaska. That's an objective observation.

Set aside the pronunciation, what is all bugging us is the timbre. Some hear Michael, some don't. I can agree that for the timbre it is much more difficult to be objective (see Pentum's game), yet some characteristics of soundalikes betray them at one point or another (power, high vs low tones, grit/husk, breath (snort included), stability in voice vs shaky voice, vibrato, etc. In order to draw less subjective conclusions, we should listen to the maximum of that voice available in order to try to detect usual or unusual characteristics compared to the voice we all have been used to - Michael's.

Now, I have a question to all, do you hear two different voices or exactly the same one:

on (at 0:54 - 0:57 ...she cries inside...)

[youtube]aRtOJTo8GT8[/youtube]

and on (at 1:52 - 1:53 ...my life...)

[youtube]8_oQPOdH9L4&feature=related[/youtube]

p.s. @Pentum, I don't have the files on my laptop, could you isolate those two and put side aside in a loop on soundcloud please?
Click to expand...



I listened to both of them, the youtube links and i clearly hear the exact same voice. And the vibrato remains a dead giveaway, simple as that. I'm not gonna tell others what to believe, but i don't have a doubt anymore who it is on the track...clearly JM.
 
Last edited:
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Now, I have a question to all, do you hear two different voices or exactly the same one:eek:n

(at 0:54 - 0:57 ...she cries inside..)

[youtube]aRtOJTo8GT8[/youtube]

and on (at 1:52 - 1:53 ...my life...)

[youtube]8_oQPOdH9L4&feature=related[/youtube]
Click to expand...
Same voice.That it is a old comparison. There are new ones so much better.
 
Last edited:
Michael was more than just a voice in a snippet of 0.36 seconds. I don't think he would put much value in us recognizing his voice in a fabricated/frankenstein snippet (no offense to you Pentum). He'd want us to feel and enjoy his songs, his artwork.


I'm getting too old for this, I guess...:scratch:
 
Chamife said:
Michael was more than just a voice in a snippet of 0.36 seconds. I don't think he would put much value in us recognizing his voice in a fabricated/frankenstein snippet (no offense to you Pentum). He'd want us to feel and enjoy his songs, his artwork.


I'm getting too old for this, I guess...:scratch:
Click to expand...
I'm not sure whether I get your point Chamife. The snippet Pentum posted was not 'frankensteined' in the sense that it was not full of copy/pasted and pitch-corrected vocals of Michael mixed with an impersonator. Most of it (if not all of it) is just Jean Walker doing his MJ impersonation.

As for Michael not putting value in people recognizing his voice in this snippet; the reason Pentum did this was to show that apparently quite a lot of people have difficulties distinguishing Michael's vocals from those of an impersonator, both 'doubters' and 'believers'. Personally I think MJ might not have cared about people being mistaken with a snippet sung by an impersonator that confused people for a while and then ended up being credited to that impersonator (as is the case now). I can imagine him even getting a bit of a kick out of it: after all, he also seemed to enjoy watching people dress and dance like him. But we are dealing with the unbelievable situation that tracks sung by an impersonator (imo) have ended up on one of his official albums and are now part of his official legacy. Do I think he would be offended by that? Knowing how much his work meant to him, I can only say hell yes. Like you said: Michael would want us to feel and enjoy his amazing work, not that of an inferior copycat.

I guess my main point is that in the past, when Michael was still with us, it would not have mattered if people mistook an impersonator's vocals for Michael's. Although it might have sparked some heated debates ("how can you fall for this?" "this is MJ, can't you tell? Love it Michael!") as it did in 2007 when Jason Malachi first gained notoriety, everybody would figure out, in the end, that they were not really Michael. People would laugh about being mistaken and perhaps give props to the impersonator for fooling them. But the Cascio track debacle and the fact that Michael is no longer with us to settle the issue once and for all, has suddenly made it important that people can distinguish his voice from that of an impersonator. No matter what side of the fence you are on with regards to the Cascio tracks, it is a really crappy situation for all of us...

Of course, I say this as someone who does not believe Michael is singing on the Cascio songs and I do not mean to offend or rile up anybody who thinks the tracks are sung by Michael (or anyone who thought Pentum's snippet was really Michael for that matter!). If the Cascio songs are one day proven to be the real deal, as impossible and unlikely as that seems to me, then I would feel bad for thinking it was Jason Malachi instead of Michael.
 
^^Will get back to your post at some later time, SoCav (So Cavalier? :D). When I have more time to clarify. Thanks for your reply.
 
To me, the interesting thing about Pentum's game is the initial reaction from fans. The first page of the "new song" thread is filled with excitement and thanks to Pentum. No one suspected anything fishy until a fan said the song is fake.

It shows how easy to fool fans. It also shows how people are easily influenced by others. We are indeed entering into a dangerous territory.
 
love is magical said:
To me, the interesting thing about Pentum's game is the initial reaction from fans. The first page of the "new song" thread is filled with excitement and thanks to Pentum. No one suspected anything fishy until a fan said the song is fake.

It shows how easy to fool fans. It also shows how people are easily influenced by others. We are indeed entering into a dangerous territory.
Click to expand...
It could of course have just been a coincidence in this case. Perhaps people who would have thought it sounded like Michael anyway just happened to be online and respond to the thread first. But regardless of whether it was a coincidence this time or not, I agree that there is no doubt that social influence has played a huge part in the whole vocal authenticity debate, on both sides of the fence.

Although I realize that these processes are at work everywhere in life, I would not have expected them to have such a big influence (before last year's events that is..) when it comes to us fans debating the authenticity of Michael's vocals. I knew from when Jason Malachi gained some notoriety in 2007 or the other random impersonators that people mistook for Michael, that there could be a small minority who would believe these songs were real. But they were generally ignored or set straight by the majority who could recognize that it was not Michael. I always kinda thought that the people who thought those songs to be real were probably not really huge fans of Michael, or very new fans and thus not familiar with his voice. I never expected there to be two large camps (both consisting of hardcore fans) duking it out.

Chamife said:
^^Will get back to your post at some later time, SoCav (So Cavalier? :D). When I have more time to clarify. Thanks for your reply.
Click to expand...
No problem, look forward to your post! And indeed, when I registered for the first MJ forum I ever joined I was listening to SOOML, hence the name. :) Zie daarentegen niet iets MJ gerelateerds in jouw naam (of heb ik het mis?)! :) ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Pentum. I know this is an old comparison, but I never heard it on its own, I mean without other comparisons, so that's why I asked Pentum to isolate it.

My question is very simple, do you clearly hear two distinct voices singing in falsettos or one and the same?

http://hulkshare.com/dphf5889f05r
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top