Michael - The Great Album Debate

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Why? Because as far as I am concerned no musicologist is expert enough to recognize MJ's voice better than his fans who have been listening to Michael for decades on the daily basis. When an important number of MJ fans (no matter if that number is minority or majority) hear exactly the same (not Michael) without consulting each other and without knowing each other across the globe, then something IS wrong. I give more credit to the hardcore fans when it comes to MJ's music than to the musicologist whose job isn't actually voice recognition anyway.

I believe the professionals and the people that were working with Michael Jackson that were in the same house/building as him and working together on these projects.

But then again Musicologists are scientists that specify in music like the ones that the CIA hired to verify that the person they were watching for like 1 month was Osama Bin Laden and not a recording or a fake so they know what they are doing.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Anyways I'm going to go to sleep so goodnight everyone.

 

[Pentum]

lol, believers are conspiracy theorists because they believe MJ's vocals has been alterered in a way that can fool a lot of fans.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I believe the professionals and the people that were working with Michael Jackson that were in the same house/building as him and working together on these projects.

But then again Musicologists are scientists that specify in music like the ones that the CIA hired to verify that the person they were watching for like 1 month was Osama Bin Laden and not a recording or a fake so they know what they are doing.

Well you choose to trust whomever you want. Being a forensic myself (in another field), I know what I am talking about.

Regarding Bin Laden, trust me if they had Bin Laden's hardcore fans with them willing to identify Bin Laden for the CIA, they'd trust them. But of course no Bin Laden's fan would have ever betrayed him. So the CIA is left with the second choice: hiring all kinds of experts (who by the way had been wrong in the past).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

A musicologist works on this and has the ability to hear things that we don't.

And your wrong facts also come from the people that were there with Michael Jackson on the studio since they were actually in his presence while he recorded.

Example: Saying no to that is like you telling your friend that his mom is not his mom he's like "but she is" then your like "nope your wrong she's not".

I'll use the same analogy,
well ask MJ's brothers, sisters and his parents if they hear their son/brother on those tracks.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Arklove, I know you're lurking oke:

 

[teli-mj]

A musicologist works on this and has the ability to hear things that we don't.

And your wrong facts also come from the people that were there with Michael Jackson on the studio since they were actually in his presence while he recorded.

Example: Saying no to that is like you telling your friend that his mom is not his mom he's like "but she is" then your like "nope your wrong she's not".

Right. So why they just don't give to the fans all the evidence that they have that is MJ singing on those songs and make us who don't believe is him to shut up? Easy, because they don't have any. They released that abomination that was called "Michael",which was a disaster from the that ugly cover to the the back, they made the money that they did and they just move on.

 

[Frankyboy5]

WHEN was the idea that the voice was processed first mentioned? During the early days I feared "something" would be "made up" to make fans think the tracks were real. I'm not sure if fans thought of this theory first or did a celebrity talk about it first. However, the first time I remember reading stuff about "processed vocals" was Teddy Riley's interview with Reuters, done one day before the album was released (the full album had already leaked days before and the fans already had full versions of all three Cascio tracks be that final or "demo"/pre-mix).

It also doesn't make sense what Dominic Cascio explained how MJ sings one part and James Porte sings another. I really don't find the idea of "too much James Porte" that "valid". We hardly hear him in Keep Your Head Up for example; "Jason"'s voice is more present in the chorus too. We clearly hear him in Stay when he sings "she was my baybe", but Dominic claimed that in Breaking News MJ sings Michael and James Porte sings Jackson or something like that...

The moment I heard breaking news, the background vocals instantly reminded me of Jason song style. Jason+Damon Sharpe sounds similar to Cascio-singer+James Porte.

 

[wolfrevenant]

A musicologist works on this and has the ability to hear things that we don't.

And your wrong facts also come from the people that were there with Michael Jackson on the studio since they were actually in his presence while he recorded.

Example: Saying no to that is like you telling your friend that his mom is not his mom he's like "but she is" then your like "nope your wrong she's not".

The thought of 'fact' and 'opinion' can be a bit of a touchy subject. What is considered fact now, may become fiction or an unsubstantiated opinion in the future. Just like how it was once claimed as a fact that the world was flat by a vast majority. Although, if you think in other terms, the world being "flat" may be considered fact in today's context, due to the effects of globalisation and the like, but that's another story.

Even when one considers an expert opinion as fact, it can still be challenged by others. As mentioned by Dr. Shafer in his Q&A, "Scientists are reluctant to state that something is a certain fact. There is evidence, and conclusions, but science is always open to new evidence and new conclusions."

The forensic musicologist that was contacted by a certain member of maximumjackson also stated something similar, in which when one produces a waveform of an audio file, it can be considered 'fact'. But once a forensic musicologist were to draw a conclusion as to the degree of accuracy or similarity between one waveform and another, it becomes an opinion. Because what one forensic musicologist claims as similar, may be claimed as different by another. The different opinions being caused by each 'expert' having different thresholds for error.

What you stated in your example is basically a 'subjective fact', that is, a fact that is based on a subjective character of experience. For example, if I show a child a picture and ask what the picture shows, the child may say that it's a "circle". But if I were to show a mathematician that same picture, he may say that it is "a round plane figure whose circumference consists of points equidistant from a fixed center". Does that automatically mean that the child has stated an unsubstantiated opinion and the mathematician has stated fact? If you were to ask sociologists, psychologists and economists to explain the benefits of an information system, is it possible that one expert's claim of fact is more 'fact' than another's?


Come to think of 'subjective fact', what I think this endless debate has created over the last 1000 or more pages of posts is basically combinations of subjective facts and unsubstantiated opinions from people of different backgrounds and expertise. I mean, we have legal experts, language experts, production experts and ultimately, MJ experts presenting their own subjective claims of fact. Of course, we do occasionally have the 'unsubstantiated opinion', e.g, "It's Michael because it is Michael" or "It's not Michael because it's not", i.e. a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence.

What is 'fact', in my honest opinion? Fact is numbers and figures (to a certain extent), and majority rules.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

The thought of 'fact' and 'opinion' can be a bit of a touchy subject. What is considered fact now, may become fiction or an unsubstantiated opinion in the future. Just like how it was once claimed as a fact that the world was flat by a vast majority. Although, if you think in other terms, the world being "flat" may be considered fact in today's context, due to the effects of globalisation and the like, but that's another story.

Even when one considers an expert opinion as fact, it can still be challenged by others. As mentioned by Dr. Shafer in his Q&A, "Scientists are reluctant to state that something is a certain fact. There is evidence, and conclusions, but science is always open to new evidence and new conclusions."

The forensic musicologist that was contacted by a certain member of maximumjackson also stated something similar, in which when one produces a waveform of an audio file, it can be considered 'fact'. But once a forensic musicologist were to draw a conclusion as to the degree of accuracy or similarity between one waveform and another, it becomes an opinion. Because what one forensic musicologist claims as similar, may be claimed as different by another. The different opinions being caused by each 'expert' having different thresholds for error.

What you stated in your example is basically a 'subjective fact', that is, a fact that is based on a subjective character of experience. For example, if I show a child a picture and ask what the picture shows, the child may say that it's a "circle". But if I were to show a mathematician that same picture, he may say that it is "a round plane figure whose circumference consists of points equidistant from a fixed center". Does that automatically mean that the child has stated an unsubstantiated opinion and the mathematician has stated fact? If you were to ask sociologists, psychologists and economists to explain the benefits of an information system, is it possible that one expert's claim of fact is more 'fact' than another's?


Come to think of 'subjective fact', what I think this endless debate has created over the last 1000 or more pages of posts is basically combinations of subjective facts and unsubstantiated opinions from people of different backgrounds and expertise. I mean, we have legal experts, language experts, production experts and ultimately, MJ experts presenting their own subjective claims of fact. Of course, we do occasionally have the 'unsubstantiated opinion', e.g, "It's Michael because it is Michael" or "It's not Michael because it's not", i.e. a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence.

What is 'fact', in my honest opinion? Fact is numbers and figures (to a certain extent), and majority rules.

How far can you go if you divide a number by its half, and that half by its hallf and so on?

 

[love is magical]

The thought of 'fact' and 'opinion' can be a bit of a touchy subject. What is considered fact now, may become fiction or an unsubstantiated opinion in the future. Just like how it was once claimed as a fact that the world was flat by a vast majority. Although, if you think in other terms, the world being "flat" may be considered fact in today's context, due to the effects of globalisation and the like, but that's another story.

Even when one considers an expert opinion as fact, it can still be challenged by others. As mentioned by Dr. Shafer in his Q&A, "Scientists are reluctant to state that something is a certain fact. There is evidence, and conclusions, but science is always open to new evidence and new conclusions."

The forensic musicologist that was contacted by a certain member of maximumjackson also stated something similar, in which when one produces a waveform of an audio file, it can be considered 'fact'. But once a forensic musicologist were to draw a conclusion as to the degree of accuracy or similarity between one waveform and another, it becomes an opinion. Because what one forensic musicologist claims as similar, may be claimed as different by another. The different opinions being caused by each 'expert' having different thresholds for error.

What you stated in your example is basically a 'subjective fact', that is, a fact that is based on a subjective character of experience. For example, if I show a child a picture and ask what the picture shows, the child may say that it's a "circle". But if I were to show a mathematician that same picture, he may say that it is "a round plane figure whose circumference consists of points equidistant from a fixed center". Does that automatically mean that the child has stated an unsubstantiated opinion and the mathematician has stated fact? If you were to ask sociologists, psychologists and economists to explain the benefits of an information system, is it possible that one expert's claim of fact is more 'fact' than another's?


Come to think of 'subjective fact', what I think this endless debate has created over the last 1000 or more pages of posts is basically combinations of subjective facts and unsubstantiated opinions from people of different backgrounds and expertise. I mean, we have legal experts, language experts, production experts and ultimately, MJ experts presenting their own subjective claims of fact. Of course, we do occasionally have the 'unsubstantiated opinion', e.g, "It's Michael because it is Michael" or "It's not Michael because it's not", i.e. a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence.

What is 'fact', in my honest opinion? Fact is numbers and figures (to a certain extent), and majority rules.

Brilliant post!!!

 

[love is magical]

I'm reading a book called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (For those who followed the debate thread on MaxJax, this is the book about "thin-slicing"). I finally picked up the book after reading Outliers by the same author. The author explained both the power and short-coming of our intuitions. Basically, the decision that we formed within a blink of an eye can be as accurate as the decision we made after reading tons and tons of other info. There is indeed such thing called TMI. However, our intuition is highly influenced by our bias, at times unconsciously.

After reading the book, I see this debate very differently. I respect both sides. Wolfrevenant said it beautifully. This is a debate of subjective facts.

If we take a look to the Breaking News thread and look at posts written shortly after the premiere of Breaking News, we&#8217;ll see how the initial reaction (&#8220;intuition&#8221 was overwhelmingly repulsive. Many tend to underestimate the reliability of our own intuition. But, human beings DO rely on our intuition to survive. For instance, our intuition tells us to run away when a car is coming fast. We don&#8217;t stand there to weight in all the options. Our intuition tells us to run. Many professionals, like doctors and nurses, rely on intuition. Intuition is also a product of years of trainings and experience. The initial negative reaction from many fans shall not be overlooked. </SPAN>

However, what we hear is highly biased. Several decades ago, most of musicians playing in the most well-known orchestra in the world were men. Most conductors thought women cannot play as passionately and powerfully as men. Female&#8217;s lips are different. Female&#8217;s hands are smaller. The conductors claimed they know what they heard &#8211; and they claimed they heard men played better music than females. But, the phenomenon started to shift after one change in the audition process. More and more females were hired in philharmonic orchestra in the United States. In the audition process, a screen was put on to hide the identity of the candidates. The candidates were identified by numbers. The people who made the hiring decisions can only judge by what they heard, not what they saw. And, many of those people who claimed men played better music picked females as the winners. So, what we hear is actually highly subjective and highly influenced by our bias. Those conductors were experts in their fields and they were just as biased as anyone else. </SPAN>



Funny how Gladwell mentioned Michael Jackson twice in Blink. The making of New Coke (which was an epic failure) was indirectly caused by Michael Jackson. lol...

Sorry for going slightly off-topic!

BTW: Wish you all lots of fun and happiness in this holiday season. Have a prosperous 2012!

 

[Arklove]

How fart can you google if you dingle a number by its Alf, and that Alf by its Alf and so on?

Do you think it's possible?

 

[ivy]

Even when one considers an expert opinion as fact, it can still be challenged by others. As mentioned by Dr. Shafer in his Q&A, "Scientists are reluctant to state that something is a certain fact. There is evidence, and conclusions, but science is always open to new evidence and new conclusions."

The forensic musicologist that was contacted by a certain member of maximumjackson also stated something similar, in which when one produces a waveform of an audio file, it can be considered 'fact'.

I think if you are going to refer to Dr.Shafer some of the other things he also said has to be considered in this debate

"Many aspects of the “standard of care” have been codified by organizations. For example, the American Society of Anesthesiologists has practice guidelines that very clearly spell out the standard of care during administration of anesthesia. My testimony was based largely on those guidelines.One could argue that it was merely my “opinion” to represent the published guidelines of the American Society of Anesthesiologists as fact. However, it is a fact that they have published guidelines on the standard of care, and those published guidelines were the basis of my “opinion.”"

In this part he referred it wasn't an opinion but a fact based on the reality that there were rules and guidelines already written by organizations.

In relevance to out issue if there's an established rules, procedures, steps to be done by the musicologists to identify vocals - such as waveforms etc.- then it can be argued that it's not an opinion but a fact based on already established guidelines. That was what the musicologist contacted by maximumjackson referred to. Assuming that these people were indeed legit experts and they have used methods in a way that's already established manner, it was useless to get another expert to do it again because most probably you would get the same "fact" of the numbers and figures.

But once a forensic musicologist were to draw a conclusion as to the degree of accuracy or similarity between one waveform and another, it becomes an opinion. Because what one forensic musicologist claims as similar, may be claimed as different by another. The different opinions being caused by each 'expert' having different thresholds for error.

true, it becomes an expert opinion. and in that instance it becomes a credibility and experience issue. That's what we saw in the experts in the Murray trial. That's why they spent hours going over the resumes of the doctors testified.

Also what is missing here is that we don't have an expert that's claiming the opposite or challenging what the Sony/ Estate experts have said.

What you stated in your example is basically a 'subjective fact', that is, a fact that is based on a subjective character of experience.

Again to quote Dr. shafer

" That is an “expert opinion.” However, it is more scientifically precise to say “conclusion, based on the data” that to call it “opinion”, since the latter implies uninformed speculation. "

You can see that as an expert he refuses the notion of "speculation" and prefers "conclusion based on the data". Although it's prone to error - as both you and Dr. Shafer said- it's an expert conclusion based on the factual data available.

Come to think of 'subjective fact', what I think this endless debate has created over the last 1000 or more pages of posts is basically combinations of subjective facts and unsubstantiated opinions from people of different backgrounds and expertise. I mean, we have legal experts, language experts, production experts and ultimately, MJ experts presenting their own subjective claims of fact. Of course, we do occasionally have the 'unsubstantiated opinion', e.g, "It's Michael because it is Michael" or "It's not Michael because it's not", i.e. a belief that may or may not be backed up with some type of evidence.

the problem is we have self-proclaimed experts and none of us are really experts. Here a person coming and saying "I'm a fan for 25 years and I know MJ's voice" and proclaiming that they are an expert doesn't mean a thing. Experts are generally determined by 3rd parties. Such as what makes Dr. Shafer an expert is not him saying that he's an expert but the fact that he has multiple diplomas, certifications, decades of experience, peer reviewed work and so on. So the argument here is not of an "expert" debate but it's simply a personal opinions discussion.

What is 'fact', in my honest opinion? Fact is numbers and figures (to a certain extent), and majority rules.

sorry I have a huge issue with "majority rule" notion because if that was the case then 70% of the general public that thought Michael to be a molester had determined the truth. Furthermore as you said "Just like how it was once claimed as a fact that the world was flat by a vast majority.". That alone shows you that not always majority rule would be the correct thing.

 

[love is magical]

In relevance to out issue if there's an established rules, procedures, steps to be done by the musicologists to identify vocals - such as waveforms etc.- then it can be argued that it's not an opinion but a fact based on already established guidelines. That was what the musicologist contacted by maximumjackson referred to. Assuming that these people were indeed legit experts and they have used methods in a way that's already established manner, it was useless to get another expert to do it again because most probably you would get the same "fact" of the numbers and figures.

Based on your research on this matter heretofore, were you able to find any established rules and procedures performed by musicologists to indentify singing voice? As far as I understand, "singing voice indentification" is an elusive field. Most working musicologists are not forensic singing voice identification experts. Musicologists are hired to work on copyright infringement cases majority of time. To make matter even more challenging, the samples used by the musciologists to perform their analysis have to be of high quality. The technology is far from fool proof. Bottom line: the margin of error of voice identification is high.

Please correct me if I'm wrong and share new info with us. Otherwise, I have a hard time in considering opinion of musiciologist "fact", rather than "expert opinion."

the problem is we have self-proclaimed experts and none of us are really experts. Here a person coming and saying "I'm a fan for 25 years and I know MJ's voice" and proclaiming that they are an expert doesn't mean a thing. Experts are generally determined by 3rd parties. Such as what makes Dr. Shafer an expert is not him saying that he's an expert but the fact that he has multiple diplomas, certifications, decades of experience, peer reviewed work and so on. So the argument here is not of an "expert" debate but it's simply a personal opinions discussion.

True. The debate here is not an expert debate. This is a debate of subjective facts. Even experts can be highly subjective and biased, as demonstrated by my earlier post about orchestra conductors claimed they heard men play better music than women.

But, the length of time people listen to Michael's music is a factor to consider and shall not be overlooked, as our intuition is based on our experience. Do you still remember the first time you listened to Breaking News? When you look back, have you wondered why you couldn't make up your mind? Why so many have such a hard time reconciling the Cascio tracks to their memories of Michael's voice. Why so many's intuitions failed them so miserably (assuming the tracks are 100% authentic)?

 

[Chamife]

Before I can't trace it again....just found the link for 'Let the monster go' ('Monster' in right speaker, 'Let me let go' in left speaker) on my computer (by accident). I can remember someone asking for the link:

http://file.si/public/viewset/68027

If you listen to it, keep changing your left and right speaker from one ear to another: I had a hard time keeping the two songs apart whilst doing this.

@Ivo: you said Jason didn't have the technique, (the gritty sung 'Breakin', the news') but in this little snippet of 'Let me let go' I hear the same gritty voice.

I like Michael's way of singing that is original and not like the others and all the messages in his songs and much more but anyways yes I hear it on the released Cascio songs.

Update: Okay I'll point it out to you

Keep Your Head Up from 0:00 - 4:52
Monster from 0:00 - 5:06
Breaking News from 0:00 - 4:15

I agree that Michael is original and totally not like the others.., but aren't all artists original in their own way?

I hoped to read some more specific things, like I asked you.

But I know enough now, so thank you. Won't ask you again.

 

[Chamife]

Off topic, but I can't find a special thread for it and it made me smile when I heard it..

@Ivo
@SoCav
@Bumper
and everyone else who maybe heard of the group 'MaiTai',

You can remember the Dutch group 'MaiTai', the Dutch national pride of the eighties?

Eric van Thijn (producer) told this evening on a show, that when MaiTai was in America to perform their succesful song 'History', they spoke to Janet and Janet told them Michael used to dance to that song....

[youtube]gkrkEvsXD3k[/youtube]

I like this one more, btw

[youtube]ZJ_uT2fQNQ4[/youtube]

Dutch top group and yes, of course Michael knew them...Nothing escaped him..:wub:

 

[StellaJackson]

One of the songs that Glee are covering in their MJ episode is Monster. Disgusting.

 

[ivy]

Based on your research on this matter heretofore, were you able to find any established rules and procedures performed by musicologists to indentify singing voice? As far as I understand, "singing voice indentification" is an elusive field. Most working musicologists are not forensic singing voice identification experts. Musicologists are hired to work on copyright infringement cases majority of time. To make matter even more challenging, the samples used by the musciologists to perform their analysis have to be of high quality. The technology is far from fool proof. Bottom line: the margin of error of voice identification is high.

Please correct me if I'm wrong and share new info with us. Otherwise, I have a hard time in considering opinion of musiciologist "fact", rather than "expert opinion."

I did not research what musicologists do or use. My search was about humans ability to identify voices. The article had one sentence that said

Voice recognition software is not as reliable as DNA or finger print analysis but it's improving "sophisticated mathematical modeling techniques, and the ability of acoustic engineers to decompose the human voice into a host of different components have led to enormous improvement in voice recognition technology".

when you have mathematical modelling it's generally seen as objective and/or factual.

It might be a field with limited number of experts - such as Dr. Shafer being one of the few people that can do mathematical modelling in his area. American musicological society lists 23 people all PhD in this area.

From one experts website " He is Certified Voice Print analyst and expert using SIS, SoundCleaner, Editracker and Cedar Cambridge Forensic."

again if there's a software or modelling is involved it's generally be seen as objective.

As far as I understand, "singing voice indentification" is an elusive field.

I think "singing voice identification" is an area created on this thread - people act like it must be something different. However singing voice identification doesn't seem to be that different from regular - normal voice identification that has been around for years and years and the same software and procedures for voice identification can be used for "singing" voice identification. It just requires a different expert (musicologist) to use the data to come to a conclusion about the data at hand.

" Someone who listens to music really, really closely. To determine if a recording of a singer's voice is real, audio experts look at elements of the singer's tone, diction, and range. (It's the musical version of what they do when there's a new recording of Osama Bin Laden.) Just as every person has a unique fingerprint, everyone's voice has a distinct timbre, which can be measured by examining the shape of the sound waves it produces and the relative emphases of its overtones. (Whenever you sing a note, you also produce notes&#8212;or overtones&#8212;an octave higher, a fifth above that, and so on. Different voices&#8212;and different instruments&#8212;produce different kinds of overtones.) It's therefore possible to find harmonic differences between two recordings that might not be easily perceptible otherwise. Some singers pronounce words in distinctive ways, too, which yields to side-by-side comparisons. A singer's tone also changes when he's stretching to reach the upper or lower limits of his vocal range. An analyst can therefore tell if the singer's range in one song doesn't match the range in another&#8212;or if it appears that his singing has been digitally modified to be higher or lower. Other sound qualities like vibrato also help authenticate a track."

Let's see the normal voice identification

The feds have audio recordings analyzed by both human experts and machines. Human analysts are very good at doing the kind of thing most people do subconsciously&#8212;telling if someone comes from a particular region by recognizing basic vowel and consonant qualities. For example, a human analyst can tell whether the "Ye" sound in "Yemen" is of the right length and stress for Bin Laden's dialect. The expert would listen to previous recordings of Bin Laden's voice and painstakingly compare words&#8212;syllable by syllable&#8212;to those on the current tape. The feds might also bring in a linguist to verify whether the words on the tape generally match those uttered by someone of Bin Laden's age and educational background.

For a machine analysis, the feds use voice-authentication software, which measures the acoustic qualities of the voice&#8212;pitch, loudness, basic resonances&#8212;that can't be estimated by a human expert. This kind of analysis can produce basic spectrographic information (indicating overall intonation and loudness) or it can look for specific features of the voice, like if Bin Laden's voice was a bit on the nasal side. Voice authentication software is also excellent for cleaning up bad recordings; the latest tape is allegedly very noisy and possibly went down a phone line at some point. Such a system can also tell if different samples of the voice were recorded on different microphones and in different locations.

Once the recording is cleaner, the software can deconstruct each single sound. Every person creates the same sounds using a slightly different set of basic pitches. So, the set of frequencies in Bin Laden's vowels, like those in "ea" from "fear," will be marginally different from anyone else's. By examining this frequency detail for every vowel and comparing them to previous examples by him, a machine analysis can tell if they are the same and were all made by him. In cases where two examples of a word, like "bombing" and "bombing," sound exactly the same to a human expert, a machine can sometimes pick out frequency differences that indicate the words were spoken by two different people.

What if analysts are pretty sure the voice on a tape is Bin Laden's, but want to make sure it hasn't been spliced together from Osama's Greatest Hits? In that case, man and machine would look for tell-tale signs of fraud. The first red flag is any hitch in Bin Laden's timing. It's almost impossible to fake a speaker's rhythm, to make sure every syllable in an utterance matches the overall length and structure of that utterance. So, if the word "Kuwait" were inserted from a previous recording by Bin Laden, it would jar the basic rhythm of the rest of his speech.

Bottom line: the margin of error of voice identification is high

This is an assumption that is suggested here but in reality no one knows the margin of error. The article I posted says it's not as reliable as DNA - which has around 99% reliability. For example voice identification could be 80% which would make it less reliable than DNA (19% worse) but it would make it a whole better than human ears (which is around 55%-60% reliability - therefore 20-25% better than humans)

True. The debate here is not an expert debate. This is a debate of subjective facts. Even experts can be highly subjective and biased, as demonstrated by my earlier post about orchestra conductors claimed they heard men play better music than women.

you are still mentioning "hearing" which I have already said - in my previous posts - that humans ability is not that good. But if you have a mathematical modelling, or a software or a waveform and so on, it doesn't include bias and subjective approach.

But, the length of time people listen to Michael's music is a factor to consider and shall not be overlooked, as our intuition is based on our experience. Do you still remember the first time you listened to Breaking News? When you look back, have you wondered why you couldn't make up your mind? Why so many have such a hard time reconciling the Cascio tracks to their memories of Michael's voice. Why so many's intuitions failed them so miserably (assuming the tracks are 100% authentic)?

The length of people listen to Michael's music is not overlooked. It's just people's ability that is questioned. If you remember the post I had they said people feeling confident about their identification doesn't mean it was right. There was no correlation between confidence and being right.

What I'm meaning is that I can come here and say I'm a legal expert because I have this and that background. However my expert ability should be put into test to see if my information is reliable.

More relevant example was the experiment Pentum did and another recent soundalike being confused as Michael. So if you look to those examples and if you have a group of people that thinks that Michael isn't the vocalist on the Cascio songs and at the same time had a hard time to identify the soundalike or was fooled by the soundalikes then we can conclude that their ability in identification is not that good. So what I'm saying is that "I listen to Michael for 25 years" isn't enough, people should have an established track record and reliability to accept them as "experts".

@Ivo: you said Jason didn't have the same technique, (the gritty sung 'Breakin', the news') but in this little snippet of 'Let me let go' I hear the same gritty voice.

what I said about technique had nothing to do with gritty voice.

 

[ivy]

One of the songs that Glee are covering in their MJ episode is Monster. Disgusting.

Perez Hilton is not the most reliable source so wait to see if it's indeed true.

That being said these songs are treated a legit by everyone so I would recommend that you don't torture yourselves.

 

[Chamife]

@Ivy
I adressed a post of Ivo, not Ivy.... (just one different letter, so I understand the mix-up)

Mmm..maybe it's better if I call him IvoDT again..;D

 

[ivy]

@Ivy
I adressed a post of Ivo, not Ivy.... (just one different letter, so I understand the mix-up)

Mmm..maybe it's better if I call him IvoDT again..;D

sorry my bad. I thought it was a typo as you were mentioning technique.

 

[Chamife]

sorry my bad. I thought it was a typo as you were mentioning technique.

No prob. I don't make typo's....I was a typist for years...:wink:. The 'Y' and the 'O' are miles apart to me. Only mistakes I make are spelling ones (in English, of course ).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

No prob. I don't make typo's....I was a typist for years...:wink:. The 'Y' and the 'O' are miles apart to me. Only mistakes I make are spelling ones (in English, of course ).

typo's -> typos

 

[Chamife]

typo's -> typos

Lol, see....that's what I mean.

 

[Chamife]

sigh...but anyway...

I don't hear Michael on the Cascio tracks, and that is A FACT.



Night everyone.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Do you think it's possible?

everything is possible:

[youtube]47wh4brf8lI[/youtube]

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

sigh...but anyway...

I don't hear Michael on the Cascio tracks, and that is A FACT.



Night everyone.

Neither Michael himself would hear himself on those tracks:

[youtube]M4Sg_A0A16c[/youtube]

 

[MJJ7777]

I'm reading a book called Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (For those who followed the debate thread on MaxJax, this is the book about "thin-slicing"). I finally picked up the book after reading Outliers by the same author. The author explained both the power and short-coming of our intuitions. Basically, the decision that we formed within a blink of an eye can be as accurate as the decision we made after reading tons and tons of other info. There is indeed such thing called TMI. However, our intuition is highly influenced by our bias, at times unconsciously.

After reading the book, I see this debate very differently. I respect both sides. Wolfrevenant said it beautifully. This is a debate of subjective facts.

If we take a look to the Breaking News thread and look at posts written shortly after the premiere of Breaking News, we&#8217;ll see how the initial reaction (&#8220;intuition&#8221 was overwhelmingly repulsive. Many tend to underestimate the reliability of our own intuition. But, human beings DO rely on our intuition to survive. For instance, our intuition tells us to run away when a car is coming fast. We don&#8217;t stand there to weight in all the options. Our intuition tells us to run. Many professionals, like doctors and nurses, rely on intuition. Intuition is also a product of years of trainings and experience. The initial negative reaction from many fans shall not be overlooked.

However, what we hear is highly biased. Several decades ago, most of musicians playing in the most well-known orchestra in the world were men. Most conductors thought women cannot play as passionately and powerfully as men. Female&#8217;s lips are different. Female&#8217;s hands are smaller. The conductors claimed they know what they heard &#8211; and they claimed they heard men played better music than females. But, the phenomenon started to shift after one change in the audition process. More and more females were hired in philharmonic orchestra in the United States. In the audition process, a screen was put on to hide the identity of the candidates. The candidates were identified by numbers. The people who made the hiring decisions can only judge by what they heard, not what they saw. And, many of those people who claimed men played better music picked females as the winners. So, what we hear is actually highly subjective and highly influenced by our bias. Those conductors were experts in their fields and they were just as biased as anyone else.



Funny how Gladwell mentioned Michael Jackson twice in Blink. The making of New Coke (which was an epic failure) was indirectly caused by Michael Jackson. lol...

Sorry for going slightly off-topic!

BTW: Wish you all lots of fun and happiness in this holiday season. Have a prosperous 2012!

:wild:Its a great book! I read it 3 years ago because it was required reading for all entering freshman at my university. Its definately shaped the way I evaluate things today. Very well suited to the issue being discussed in this thread. Like the quote in my siggy says, sometimes we THINK too much and that gets in the way of the simple and ultimate truth. When I hear these songs side by side with every sound that is authentically Michael, I don't get the same feeling, they just ring fake to me and I don't know why I'm getting this signal but reading Blink would definitely explain why we automatically+ accurately sense some things are just plain WRONG in the time it takes to blink one's eye.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

:wild:Its a great book! I read it 3 years ago because it was required reading for all entering freshman at my university. Its definately shaped the way I evaluate things today. Very well suited to the issue being discussed in this thread. Like the quote in my siggy says, sometimes we THINK too much and that gets in the way of the ultimate truth.

That's true. A perfect example is questions such as:

how do you make 4 equal triangles with 6 bars: | | | | | | Try it