BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Have you compared your voice to everyone to come up with that conclusion?
(Just pulling your leg
)
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Have you compared your voice to everyone to come up with that conclusion?
(Just pulling your leg
)clear difference. when everyone agrees and you don't have different people saying different things.
I guess you are tying to go back to "accent/ pronunciation is objective" argument. I would have some questions
1. How confident are you about your determination?
2. how confident are you that no other expert would say the opposite?
3. if you answered "confident" in the above two questions and if it is as objective as you say, wouldn't that be enough "proof" that would hold in court?
and let me add something in the murray trial multiple experts testified to their belief that there was a drip, they supported this by statements, blood levels, scientific research and so on. yet at the end of the day it's a theory - a well justified theory - but not a "fact" as we can see from defense witnesses a theory which wasn't fully agreed upon.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
No, honestly, my post wasn't aiming to lead you to talk about pronunciation or accent. I was purely curious to know what would be your criteria to determine "objectivity" in case of soundalikes.
Now I go back to your criteria of "when all agree". That critreria alone is not enough for two reasons:
1) In order for everyone to agree they need to base their opinion on the criteria of objectivity, which in this case hasn't been determined by you. Also, this first point joins your Madonna vs. Michael point. I was asking for the criteria when it comes to soundalikes, i.e. when there is a clear difficulty to determine the differences (obviously in these cases you will never have everyone's agreement, see my second point).
2) Still today some people think that Let Me Let Go and Mamacita are sung by Michael Jackson, which means that you don't have clear agreement. The subjectivity is all around. Yet, you must have your personal kind of threshold which would allow you to make a clear opinion based on the criteria of objectivity.
I think you will agree that it's not because everyone thinks one thing that it means that it is objective. Sometimes the minority could be more objective than the majority. So, the criteria of saying "when everyone agrees" isn't very convincing. What do you think? Do you have other criteria which would allow you to think objectively?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
To answer your questions.
1. As far as my confidence is concerned, I will admit that I cannot objectively vouch for a whole song and say that it is Jason Malachi 100%.
However, there are some parts on the Cascio tracks that I am 100% confident it is Jason Malachi. (See a few pages back the falsetto compparison I asked Pentum to upload and put in a loop.)
Now, the other parts where I am less sure don't sound like Michael Jackson to me. Those parts could be Jason Malachi, or someone else. And Some copy-pasted words from genuine songs make it more difficult for me to have a clear opinion other than "something is wrong/unnatural big time". If any of the songs convinces me at its best is a part of Black Widow.
2. I would be glad to share my opinion in my field of expertise with a colleague. But, I haven't really found anyone on this board who studied applied linguistics, phonology, phonetics, comparative dialectology and linguistics of Indo-European, Indo-Iranian and Semitic languages, as well as interpreting and translating; tools which help in determining someone's accents, pronunciation, regionalism, etc.
So my confidentiality is 100% sure for the parts that I pointed out in the songs that sound exactly like Jason Malachi. Some other parts in the songs that I did not point out in my previous posts, I cannot vouch for them 100% accuratrely either because of the music overlaping or because some parts might have been pasted from previous MJ's songs.
3. It would not be enough "proof", not because of the objectivity/subjectivity issue, but because of the lack of tracability and too many parts in the songs in which it is impossible to say if it is actually Jason Malachi or someone else. So, in other words, even if those little parts are 100% confident, in other parts they managed to make the songs not sounding 100% like Jason Malachi, but neither like 100% Michael. And without any tracable proof (worktapes, videos, other demos, etc.) it is practically impossible to prove it one way or another.
As we said earlier, we can only be led to believe one way or the other. But for my part, the little bits I identified as 100% Jason, ruins the whole song for me. To me it doesn't matter if Jason participated 10% or 90% in the songs, what bothers me is that we have been led to believe that those 10% to 90% were sung by Michael alone (excluding James Porte's supporting vocals of course).
see the thing is I don't think identifying soundalikes could be objective that's why I wrote first "clear difference" in my answer and went with Madonna / Michael example and said in my initial post Michael versus soundalike would be subjective.
and as you said if today people still think some Malachi songs to be Michael's and as we have seen from Pentum's experiment that people can be fooled by other soundalikes as well, I don't think that identification would ever be objective.
and as you said if today people still think some Malachi songs to be Michael's and as we have seen from Pentum's experiment that people can be fooled by other soundalikes as well, I don't think that identification would ever be objective.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
But for Madonna/Michael, the problem is even not posed. It is so obvious and clear that there is no debate.
When it comes to soundalikes, every person individually have some kind of criteria in their head which is telling them that they hear Michael or soundalike. And that is as a matter of fact subjective. But in order to have a clear objective opinion, as I said, you must set a list of things which you hear in common between Michael and a soundalike, and a list of things that sound different between Michael and a soundalike.
For example, in my previous posts I clearly isolated things which do not sound like Michael and explained why. Nobody gave an objective counterexplanation other than a speculation. I mean it is different when you clearly show something and explain, and when someone counter you by saying "maybe it's because of this, maybe it's because of that".
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
When it commes to objectivity, what I don't understand, is how come that on the one hand you are putting forward subjectivity argument, and on the other hand you defend your opinion that it is Michael. If you say it is subjective, you would at least acknowledge that it could be as much Michael as not at all.
^^
where did I even say it's anything more than "my opinion" or "objective"? I never made such claims. I multiple times said I never said "100% Michael", I said "I'm more likely to believe another soundalike than Jason", I mentioned "We are all biased" and I also stated that "I can be wrong" (and actually had issues with people who said they can't be wrong).
and if you remember last weekend of me and Gaz's posts, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion and defending it as long as you don't turn it into a fact, evidence, proof and so on.
so what you want me to acknowledge is something that I have already acknowledged on day 1.
(note: I might have called "law/ rules /regulations" as objective as it's written but I didn't call my opinion about the voice to be objective)
where did I even say it's anything more than "my opinion" or "objective"? I never made such claims. I multiple times said I never said "100% Michael", I said "I'm more likely to believe another soundalike than Jason", I mentioned "We are all biased" and I also stated that "I can be wrong" (and actually had issues with people who said they can't be wrong).
and if you remember last weekend of me and Gaz's posts, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion and defending it as long as you don't turn it into a fact, evidence, proof and so on.
so what you want me to acknowledge is something that I have already acknowledged on day 1.
(note: I might have called "law/ rules /regulations" as objective as it's written but I didn't call my opinion about the voice to be objective)
To be clear
- I think Michael is on the vocals
- I think there is also supportive / ghost vocals - which I believe to be credited
I also approach this from a legal perspective and see a song with 51% MJ vocals with credited whatever additional vocals as legit song. I also have a different approach to posthumous releases then most.
If I am to approach this from the perspective that I'm mistaken about thinking the vocals to be Michael - in other words if I put myself in your shoes
- I don't think they are Jason either - I think techniques do not match.
as doubters point has been "100% Jason for sure" and as I don't agree with that , I don't see myself as a doubter.
In short what is problematic to some aren't an issue for me and I'm not convinced that there's a fraud going on.
I acknowledge that there are knowledgeable people on MJ fan forums (such as pentum being an Malachi expert, you a language expert, Grent and Tpimaster knowledgeable about music and so on) I think the voice identification between soundalikes aren't that easy or clear cut as people make it sound to be and I believe a good portion of doubters were convinced based on these opinion leaders.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Ok,
I see your point. I agree that some doubters have been claiming 100% being right.
Now, let's also not forget that many doubters actually want to be wrong about their doubts. Let's also face it, many doubters never excluded the possibility that MJ might have sung the songs. The doubters on numerous occasions have been asking for some real proof rather than a word. Which means that the doubters all this time have been open to possibilities that there is MJ on the songs.
As far as believers are concerned, either they changed their opinion and became doubters after hearing last series of leaks or they remained 100% sure it is Michael and 100% sure that there is no fraud. But, how can anyone be actually sure 100% that there's no fraud?
In the end, some believers aren't questioning themselves more than some doubters who actually ask for nothing else but to be proven wrong. This alone contradicts a bit the advocacy of putting the argument of "subjectivity" when at the same time the believers don't even give the smallest possibility that there was fraud.
p.s. How objective is to believe that there is no fraud?
Last edited:
again I didn't use the word "objective". I said "I'm not convinced" which alone explains that it is a personal opinion. also "not convinced" doesn't equal that there "can't" be a fraud. There might be it's a possibility, I'm personally not convinced.
also it's also important to clarify what is fraud - well at least legally
- copy paste adlibs isn't fraud
- any credited vocals isn't fraud
- use of supportive vocals , ghost vocals isn't fraud
- if the song consists of Michael's vocals + other vocals it's not fraud.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I meant fraud as in having an impostor singing some parts leading us to believe that it is Michael jackson.
My point was, from the moment you accept that there is a possibility of fraud, and from the moment you accept that it is subjective that some people hear Michael and some people hear an impostor, then you are automatically a doubter, despite saying that you hear Michael. I mean, if you open the possibility that there has been a fraud and if you open the possibility that the vocals might have been sung by an impostor, then I can't see how you can define yourself as a believer. It is not because some doubters are defending 100% thesis of Jason vocals, that all doubters agree.
But if you are a believer that it is Michael Jackson, then you cannot accept the idea that there is an impostor on those tracks, hence no fraud.
To sum up, the difference is, the doubters want to be proven wrong, the believers don't bother about the subject as they hear MJ. So, again, as a conclusion, it may sound a bit as a paradox, but those that don't question themselves, in my opinion, are more the believers than the doubters.
Last edited:
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
The only thing I can say to people who still think it is Michael is to listen to Fall In Love. There is no room for debate after that. It simply isn't Michael Jackson.
ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
Why can't you guys say it's your opinion why say yes it is when unofficially no one knows.
Chamife
Proud Member
I miss the chtssjj's, like Michael sometimes pronounces it. Touchsjjjj in 'Break of Dawn', or chsjjoy in 'Best of Joy', or the very first sssjjhe in 'she was there just sitting at the table' in 'Much too Soon' or wouchjjssse in 'would you like to go with me' from that same song. Or matchjjjical in 'Speechless'. Has anyone detected one in any of the Cascio songs? I haven't.
Chamife
Proud Member
Yeah, that one..
Frankyboy5
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,386
- Points
- 48
lol the way MJ starts out in BOJ reminds me of Adam Young
it's quite shocking to hear how Room 2 Breathe was originally sung by Yu Hao Ming. However it wouldn't be unusual if the song was originally done by American producers who worked with him. Jason may also know these ppl so he got the permission to sing it too.
Or maybe Jason's obsessed with Asian pop... Stay and Biggerman reminds me of "Give Me A Song's Time" by Jay Chou, haha.
My standpoint is that Jason is singing in the tracks, and I do not deny that the songs were not processed. The hoo! from You Rock My World is repeated in Breaking News several times but it sounds slightly different each time, as if the waveform was altered ever so slightly. This is more apparent with the "WHY YOU" in Monster.
As for "JASON's" voice in the Cascio tracks, I believe either some processing was done or Jason was trying to sing like MJ. Let Me Let Go sounds different from some of his later songs. If Jason sang these songs, he would definitely give it a slight bit more effort. As he once boasted how you won't be able to tell the difference.
it's quite shocking to hear how Room 2 Breathe was originally sung by Yu Hao Ming. However it wouldn't be unusual if the song was originally done by American producers who worked with him. Jason may also know these ppl so he got the permission to sing it too.
Or maybe Jason's obsessed with Asian pop... Stay and Biggerman reminds me of "Give Me A Song's Time" by Jay Chou, haha.
My standpoint is that Jason is singing in the tracks, and I do not deny that the songs were not processed. The hoo! from You Rock My World is repeated in Breaking News several times but it sounds slightly different each time, as if the waveform was altered ever so slightly. This is more apparent with the "WHY YOU" in Monster.
As for "JASON's" voice in the Cascio tracks, I believe either some processing was done or Jason was trying to sing like MJ. Let Me Let Go sounds different from some of his later songs. If Jason sang these songs, he would definitely give it a slight bit more effort. As he once boasted how you won't be able to tell the difference.
Last edited:
love is magical
Proud Member
I know a thing or two about Asian pop. I'm Chinese. Stay definitely sounds like a Jay Chou creation. Jay Chou sounds like a water down version of Usher.lol the way MJ starts out in BOJ reminds me of Adam Young
love is magical
Proud Member
When Michael mis-pronounced a word intentionally or unintentionally, he always sounded mesmerizingly beautiful. But, I have to say the word "restaurant" in KYHU sounds awkward. Maybe Teddy messed up again.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
Actually it was Tricky Stewart who produced KYHU. Teddy passed up on it because "it doesn't sound enough like Michael. Michael doesn't swing like that." His words.
did you hear it from teddy? or are you quoting someone else? if it's someone else then it's hearsay not his words.
love is magical
Proud Member
Oops... Mixed up Teddy and Tricky.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
I'm really sick of people accusing the doubters of creating this controversy. The fault lies with the people who a) made the songs and b) chose to include them despite the backlash from fans.
qbee
Proud Member
Who's words ?
Although I have no respect for Teddy Riley and what he has done to promote himself in the MJ fan base as far as Ive seen Teddy never questioned the validity of any of the casico songs becuase he was also producing Casico tracks for the Album. Can you please link the source for this quote becuase I dont think this is a direct "quote" from Teddy - Where did you get this info from? Thanks
I understand that. but consider this. If these songs turn out to be legit all the fault will lie with the people who claimed they were fake and created / continued the backlash.
see?
teli-mj
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 625
- Points
- 0
So why no one is giving us any real evidence or proof of MJ singing on those songs so we can finally put this whole thing in a reast? I mean it's been almost one year and a half and we are still debating the authentisity of the songs. They could very easily give us a demo of Mike's singing or a video etc and everything would be fine. Why didn't they do that?