ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
So because he never used it like that it means it's not him ?
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
azsummergirl
Proud Member
^^dude. seriously? it's not because he never "used it like that" that it's not him. it's because it sounds nothing like him that it's not him. I can "use" my voice any which way i want, and it always still sounds like me. michael used his voice in MANY unique ways, in many songs, and it never didn't sound like him
ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
I understand what your saying but is there anything that proves that it's not him ?
It's not ONE case btw. I just wrote one example. Over the years they realized that regardless of confidence levels, human's voice identification ability isn't the best. Therefore it's no longer admissible. And in this example the next door neighbor as as confident as you are, the jury believed her word and convicted him - turned out to be wrong.
So don't bet on the life of you and the people you know just to be on the safe side.
love is magical
Proud Member
Wow... 1,400 pages!!! 
arty:
arty:
Chamife
Proud Member
On WBSS I mainly hear the background singers sing 'mammasay etc'. Only in the demo I think I heard Michael sing that (just listened to it on YT). But also very possible you know more than me, lol. Anyway, I never noticed Michael singing these lyrics, but mostly the background singers did.
And besides that, you can sing 'mammasay' in different ways. Not sure if that can be adjusted by melodyne or autotune. First you got to change the key of the whole word maybe and also the keys of the different syllables, 'ma', 'ma', 'say'. 3 different keys.
Grent
Guests
I am not basing my assumption on 'voice identification' but on numbers.
And your example is actually pretty interesting. Because the woman thought, it WAS the neighbour. And she was wrong. So I believe it's easier to get fooled that way instead of the other.
It's far easier, because I think your mind is kind of tricking you:There is an actor who when I saw him briefly reminded me of Matt Damon. I thought it was him in disguise. I saw him for a longer time, and still thought that way. So there were characteristics that matched, so I immediately thought of Damon. No matter that some parts didn't match AT ALL. I still believed it could be him. Of course it wasn't.
The other way around would be, someone telling you, the Major in Ghosts is MJ. And you'd say: no. It isn't him. Well in that case however MJ was in disguise on purpose. And PRETTY damn intense. Believers might say, that whole quality and processing thing is the disguise ... well, in Ghosts we got the proof it was MJ. And the Cascio disguise is just too good to be true. And doubters already showed that that disguise would never be that intense.
The above is not science but just my observation.
Let's say I have an unleaked Freddie Mercury song where he sings only. I leak a long snippet saying it is MICHAEL JACKSON. People say it's Freddie and that it doesn' sound like Michael Jackson.
I say it is Michael Jackson. How can they prove it's Freddie and not Michael Jackson?
....
Exactly, they can't. But it's obviously not Michael Jackson singing.
JUST like in the "mama say mamma got you in a zig zag". We can't PROVE it's MJ singing, but it's obviously not him.
That line is one of the worst lines in the cascio songs to attempt to sound like MJ. It sounds 100% just like Jason to me. So sad.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I think that if Michael Jackson sings on the Cascio tracks, then the songs on all other albums OFF THE WALL, THRILLER, BAD, DANGEROUS, HISTORY, BLOOD ON THE DANCE FLOOR and INVINCIBLE are sung by an impostor. I think that would be logicial
Grent
Guests
The answer lies within the "you KEEP on breaking the news".
cut/paste is not as easy as it might look. It's hard to match up recording and voice characteristics. As you see at the KEEP. It seems way out of place sonically - not the first time, but the last 3 times (as shown in the soundcloud example). Also the YOU is pasted. And it's most probably MJ, why would they paste it, if not.
And why did they paste the YOU KEEP three times in the end, but failed to do so at the first "you keep on breaking the news" ?
(In truth of course they didn't paste it 3 times, but reused the one pasted line. They did NOT however reuse the perfectly fine non-pasted 'you keep on breaking' line, which they also had.)
We'll never know. Probably to make the fraud not as offensive. But does it make sense for a believer? No, not at all. Because a believer would say, the first not pasted 'you keep' is MJ alright.
So any believer might answer the question, why they replaced a genuine MJ 'you keep' with a pasted MJ 'YOU KEEP' later in the song.
By the way, also the breath at the beginning is sampled.
This ... is ... fraud. As simple as that.Here the soundcloud example: http://soundcloud.com/mjlover01/the-strange-you-keep-on
You hear slowed down
1) you keep on breaking the news
2) YOU KEEP on breaking the news #1
3) YOU KEEP on breaking the news #2
4) YOU KEEP on breaking the news #3
5) you vs. YOU
6) keep vs. KEEP
You can even hear artifacts at the pasted 'YOU' (also on the 'KEEP'), which is qualitywise far weaker then the first non-pasted 'you'. Those very artifacts strongly resemble artifacts you get, when you filter frequencies to get a acapella out of a song. So I assume, the 'YOU' is NOT taken from an acapella. It's also less in tune, than the non-pasted 'you'.
So why paste a WEAKER MJ 'YOU' if you have a far better MJ 'you' ?
Easy. The first one is not MJ. That's the only logical explanation. And they wanted to paste more real MJ into the song, hence the weaker but authentic samples.
Please don't say
In my opinion the two different "you keep on breaking" sound the same
or
In my opinion the 'you keep' does not sound pasted, it's just another take.
Because then you're simply disqualified.
Last edited:
Chamife
Proud Member
Cuts and pastes...yikes. That's why I love 'Much too soon' so much. Honest and 'simple' and all Michael...sigh.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
The answer lies within the "you KEEP on breaking the news".
cut/paste is not as easy as it might look. It's hard to match up recording and voice characteristics. As you see at the KEEP. It seems way out of place sonically - not the first time, but the last 3 times (as shown in the soundcloud example). Also the YOU is pasted. And it's most probably MJ, why would they paste it, if not.
And why did they paste the YOU KEEP three times in the end, but failed to do so at the first "you keep on breaking the news" ?
(In truth of course they didn't paste it 3 times, but reused the one pasted line. They did NOT however reuse the perfectly fine non-pasted 'you keep on breaking' line, which they also had.)
We'll never know. Probably to make the fraud not as offensive. But does it make sense for a believer? No, not at all. Because a believer would say, the first not pasted 'you keep' is MJ alright.
So any believer might answer the question, why they replaced a genuine MJ 'you keep' with a pasted MJ 'YOU KEEP' later in the song.
By the way, also the breath at the beginning is sampled.
Here the soundcloud example: http://soundcloud.com/mjlover01/the-strange-you-keep-on
You hear slowed down
1) you keep on breaking the news
2) YOU KEEP on breaking the news #1
3) YOU KEEP on breaking the news #2
4) YOU KEEP on breaking the news #3
5) you vs. YOU
6) keep vs. KEEP
You can even hear artifacts at the pasted 'YOU' (also on the 'KEEP'), which is qualitywise far weaker then the first non-pasted 'you'. Those very artifacts strongly resemble artifacts you get, when you filter frequencies to get a acapella out of a song. So I assume, the 'YOU' is NOT taken from an acapella. It's also less in tune, than the non-pasted 'you'.
So why paste a WEAKER MJ 'YOU' if you have a far better MJ 'you' ?
Easy. The first one is not MJ. That's the only logical explanation. And they wanted to paste more real MJ into the song, hence the weaker but authentic samples.
You know, before even realizing that some vocals had been pasted when I heard the "breaking" part towards the end of the song, I heard Jason's voice timbre. Michael had never had such a timbre in any of his songs compared to Jason's songs.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Arklove, stop lurking and go back to bed :beee:
I am not basing my assumption on 'voice identification' but on numbers.
And your example is actually pretty interesting. Because the woman thought, it WAS the neighbour. And she was wrong. So I believe it's easier to get fooled that way instead of the other.
and how is that woman thinking "that's my neighbor" is any different that some here thinking "that's Malachi" ? Especially the comparisons play the same trick on the mind as well.
It isn't. You are right. I was talking about "it is not Michael Jackson".
But still it's a bit different, because we can analyze the voices one next to another, without faulty recollection from memory.
So little space for mind tricks there.
and isn't that what the two experts did with the raw vocals?
and I'm curious what analysis are you talking about? Comparisons? they are faulty because they are leading. I really haven't seen much other comparisons.
remember that popular opinion doesn't mean right opinion? plus for that to have any validity it would require everyone coming to their own conclusions WITHOUT each other and others.. That's never been an option in this case.. That ship sailed the day Friedman, TMZ started writing about the controversy. You can see the effect of this when the first 20 second snippet was posted and all people can hear was an "aww".
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I agree, I wasn't using majority vs minority argument, but one single opinion (the lady's) of hearing something vs a vast number of people not hearing that something.
You could actually compare the lady's opinion of hearing her neighbor (and being wrong) with believers of hearing Michael (and being...wrong?) rather than comparing her hearing with doubters not hearing. Do you see what I mean?
p.s.
Lady hears neighbor (being wrong)
Believers hear Michael
= COMPARABLE
Lady hears neighbor (being wrong)
Doubters don't hear Michael
= UNCOMPARABLE
Last edited:
^^
It's semantics
Lady hearing neighbor (being wrong) , doubters hearing Malachi = COMPARABLE
If doubters stopped with this ain't Michael, that would be a whole different situation (remember this from the old discussions that had legal concepts as well and I told that the questions should have been "Is it Michael or not?") , the moment you added "It's Malachi" to the mix this has become a different ball game.
(of course still the others and how influence the opinions should also be addressed. For example one of the reasons that voice identification is no longer admissible is when the cops asked people to listen to a voice and say if it was the perpetrator's voice people said yes. Basically it showed that such questions were leading people to "hear" stuff. Therefore with the same logic if you give anyone Malachi's voice, they would start "hearing" similarities - whether it's actually there or not)
So as the lady thought she heard her neighbor, as the people thought they heard prime minister - but they didn't - the doubters might believe they hear Malachi. However this mixing up (Michael - Malachi) wouldn't be surprising (both for believers - thinking Michael when it's Malachi and doubters - thinking Malachi when it's Michael) as research has shown people suck at voice identification - even mothers cannot identify between their two sons (the correct identification rate was around 55-60% which is almost the same as randomly picking one son -50%).
It's semantics
Lady hearing neighbor (being wrong) , doubters hearing Malachi = COMPARABLE
If doubters stopped with this ain't Michael, that would be a whole different situation (remember this from the old discussions that had legal concepts as well and I told that the questions should have been "Is it Michael or not?") , the moment you added "It's Malachi" to the mix this has become a different ball game.
(of course still the others and how influence the opinions should also be addressed. For example one of the reasons that voice identification is no longer admissible is when the cops asked people to listen to a voice and say if it was the perpetrator's voice people said yes. Basically it showed that such questions were leading people to "hear" stuff. Therefore with the same logic if you give anyone Malachi's voice, they would start "hearing" similarities - whether it's actually there or not)
So as the lady thought she heard her neighbor, as the people thought they heard prime minister - but they didn't - the doubters might believe they hear Malachi. However this mixing up (Michael - Malachi) wouldn't be surprising (both for believers - thinking Michael when it's Malachi and doubters - thinking Malachi when it's Michael) as research has shown people suck at voice identification - even mothers cannot identify between their two sons (the correct identification rate was around 55-60% which is almost the same as randomly picking one son -50%).
Chamife
Proud Member
But the sons weren't singing, I presume...
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
^^
It's semantics
Lady hearing neighbor (being wrong) , doubters hearing Malachi = COMPARABLE
If doubters stopped with this ain't Michael, that would be a whole different situation (remember this from the old discussions that had legal concepts as well and I told that the questions should have been "Is it Michael or not?") , the moment you added "It's Malachi" to the mix this has become a different ball game.
(of course still the others and how influence the opinions should also be addressed. For example one of the reasons that voice identification is no longer admissible is when the cops asked people to listen to a voice and say if it was the perpetrator's voice people said yes. Basically it showed that such questions were leading people to "hear" stuff. Therefore with the same logic if you give anyone Malachi's voice, they would start "hearing" similarities - whether it's actually there or not)
So as the lady thought she heard her neighbor, as the people thought they heard prime minister - but they didn't - the doubters might believe they hear Malachi. However this mixing up (Michael - Malachi) wouldn't be surprising (both for believers - thinking Michael when it's Malachi and doubters - thinking Malachi when it's Michael) as research has shown people suck at voice identification - even mothers cannot identify between their two sons (the correct identification rate was around 55-60% which is almost the same as randomly picking one son -50%).
No, it is not semantics at all.
Again, the point is:
The lady hears the neighbor, the believers hear Michael.
The lady hears the neighbor, the doubters don't hear Michael.
We are talking about whether it is Michael Jackson or not on those tracks (in the lady's case whether it's her neighbor or not).
Now, if the doubters are wrong about Jason Malachi, no one would care. The core issue is that we don't hear Michael.
Again:
Lady has spoken and heard her neighbor for 20 years. (She was wrong)
COMPARABLE TO
Believers have been listening to Michael for 20 years and more, and hear Michael on those tracks.
vs.
Lady has spoken and heard her neighbor for 20 years. (She was wrong)
UNCOMPARABLE TO
Doubters have listened to Michael for 20 years and more and don't hear Michael on those tracks.
Now, if it is not Michael, it is an impostor. Whether it is Jason or someone else, the doubters don't care. What the doubters do care about is that they don't hear Michael.
P.S. And the argument that the doubters were influenced by other people does not stand. Paris reportedly claimed that Hollywood Tonight wasn't Michael Jackson, I don't see a single doubter saying that Hollywood Tonight isn't Michael Jackson. By the way, if the entire planet said that Hollywood Tonight isn't Michael Jackson, I would still hear Michael Jackson on that song.
Last edited:
But the sons weren't singing, I presume...
singing voice or any voice with any alteration ( they asked people to whisper, put a pencil in their mouth and speak - in our case it would be any processing/ effects and so on) is actually a lot harder to identify than speaking voice.
It's semantics, because you are picking one example. Obviously in court the problem would be the wrong identification - hence the example the lady thinking it's her neighbor when it's not - will be mentioned to explain why such voice identifications are no longer admissible in court. However if you remember my long post they had around 15 different research that focused on people's ability to "correctly" identify a voice and again they sucked.
If today we said "okay let's flip a coin to determine if it's Michael", we have 50% chance of coming up with the correct identification. Research shows correct voice identification rates is around 60%. That still leaves a huge margin for mistaken identification.
So yes you might not hear Michael and you can be very confident about it (they also checked for it - doesn't matter), it simply doesn't mean that you are "correct" in your identification. and yes the same is true for believers as well.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I explained why it was not semantics, because you compare apples and pears. Apples and pears are fruit, but apples are not pears and pears are not apples.
The court has nothing to do with this. I don't know what is the relevance of the court inhere? One court in one country can rule one way and another court in another country can rule the opposite way. So, let's not involve the court into this, because there are as many courts as memebers of a jury and lawyers presenting and defending (in)efficiently a case.
I remember your post, and I also posted a very long post about experts identifying people's voice, the result was: unreliable. So we can also draw conclusions taht SONY's or Estate's "best" audio forensics (who are they?) can be totally wrong.
From the moment you ask a question "is it Michael or not", you always actually give 50% of possibility. People will always answer (even for genuine songs) yes or no. So we should make a clear difference between a flip question yes or no (50%) and the number of people's answers that could vary from 0% to 100%. Never in history of Michael Jackson's career were there so many doubts about vocals and provable discrepancies, for example snorts! We can't deny hearing them, it's not a given idea, it is there, on the record.
Well, as I said earlier, I cannot vouch 100% if I hear Malachi or not on all those songs (and by the way, as I said it is not important). I do hear Michael on copy-pastes. But what is disturbing is NOT TO HEAR Michael on those particular tracks.
We can judge some comparisons leading, but at the same time we cannot deny that all Michael Jackson's previous songs are nonetheless our reference in our ears. There is nothing more logical than to compare the Cascio songs with the reference. And when we do it, we don't hear the same voice. When we do it with the best possible candidate we know (Malachi), the vocals match. And even when we argue about subjectivity of vocals, can we deny snorts on the Cascio tracks and on Malachi's tracks? I mean, how far do we have to deny?
ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I really must correct you here Ivy. You are entering my domain when talking about this.
When someone whispers, you don't hear a voice at all. The voice is not used, only the breath and the mouth (tongue, etc.)
Some sounds don't need a voice at all, like:
[p], [t],
This kind of test is a good test just to prove that no one can recognize a whisperer, but it odesnt' prove that you can't recognize the voice once the person uses his/her voice.
So the processing of a voice is certainly not comparable to whispering (non-voice).
Last edited:
Grent
Guests
I made a simple comparison and suddenly in comes Malachi and court. Those two had nothing to do with my comparison.
It's so exhausting talking to you, because you always drift off.
I said, there is a difference, because we can analyse 2 audio files whereas the lady would have to take at least one virtual audio file from her faulty memory. Nothing more, nothing else. Please stop exploiting simple posts every time.
ivy said:
It's so exhausting talking to you, because you always drift off.
I said, there is a difference, because we can analyse 2 audio files whereas the lady would have to take at least one virtual audio file from her faulty memory. Nothing more, nothing else. Please stop exploiting simple posts every time.
Last edited: