I would think that for example a waveform would give the same result regardless of who did it. For example there have been waveforms posted at max-jax that showed similar but not same results. Similarly to Dr. Shafer making his simulations available to the defense, if there's any mathematical models or software's as mentioned they should be giving the same results. That's why the expert approached by max-jax called it a waste of money.
A waveform would be the same, regardless of the program used. I'm not too familiar with the spectrums used at maximumjackson, but from what I understand, the users were trying to find copy and pastes from Michael's other songs, and not actually to identify if the singer were really Michael. Even when the spectrum of the acapella of Speechless and the This Is It version of Speechless were compared, they appeared completely different to the untrained folks. Attempts were also made to validate the singer's vibrato by stretching the waveform to show that unlike Michael, the singer's vibrato breaks apart (perhaps trying to show the difference between Michael's wobble vibrato and the singer's bleat vibrato). But the comparison was dismissed as it was claimed that to stretch the waveform would be to distort the audio so as to become unrecognisable.
From what I can recall, the expert on maximumjackson considered the task a waste of money due to the lack of information. For example, without the raw demos of the Cascio tracks and other raw samples from Michael's catalogue, unfortunately, the error rate is greater. Making it much more likely that two forensic musicologists will come to different conclusions. The experts could share information, but nonetheless, unless the audio files being analysed are in their most basic form, there will be a difference in expert opinions from error rates, and even more when we consider potential biasedness.
With difference in expert opinions, it ultimately becomes a battle of experts, which the forensic musicologist discouraged on maximumjackson, as ultimately, the onus is on the fans to proof their claims. He did mention that Quincy Jones believing the tracks to be fake would be a big help, and even better if the fans could get more statements from other 'behavioural experts' of Michael. But even then, it wouldn't have been enough. Which is ultimately why he discouraged the fans from hiring him, and instead asked the fans to obtain more information from the Estate about the tracks before pursuing further.
true and as I said the second part of this equation is the conclusions - if any. Such as looking to the waveform and writing a conclusion based on it. In that point the expert, their credibility, their background and their bias comes into play.
Well if you read the Estate statement it wasn't only a forensic musicologist. They had approached to one who probably had used a previously determined and would hold in court techniques of voice identification. Sony had it double checked by a second expert - hence controlling for bias, error, credibility to an extent. Estate went on to list another group of people who have worked with Michael including sound engineers to musicians to producers.
So their conclusion wasn't based on one single forensic musicologist but a double check and other people that had other expertise based on their previous experience with Michael's voice.
Even if Sony or the Estate were to hire two forensic musicologists to analyse the audio files, there's still a chance for biasedness. For example, the forensic musicologists not wanting to upset their wealthy client, so as to have opportunities for further work, or potentially be recommended to other wealthy clients by Sony/Estate. When it comes to cases of potential fraud or simple business risk, I tend to stress the need for independent third parties for the 'auditing' of songs bought from outside parties. But unfortunately, there is no law governing the authenticity of songs, as to sell an impersonator as the real artist, is simply unheard of in this time and age.
If we were to assume that these forensic musicologists were completely independent in their analysis, unfortunately, I still don't believe they ever had the actual raw demos to analyse as I heard they were deleted/destroyed? Thus, as I mentioned before, it results in higher rates of error, either in terms of difficulty of seperating vocal from non-vocal segments, sampled parts of Michael's other songs already being present, or different studio productions resulting in different audio frequencies.
The other group which Sony/Estate listed are perhaps, what I consider the 'behavioural experts', that is, those who are familiar with Michael's studio behaviour, since they are former co-workers of his. But I find the fact that Sony/Estate conveniently left out the 'rest of the opinions' from that listening session rather...suspicious. It would seem that they intended the statement as a 'comfort' letter, but not as a guarantor of authenticity. Perhaps, one could even consider the statement as simply hearsay.
numerical data is not as subjective as you sound it to be. For example 2+2 will be 4 regardless of who you ask. For example any legit mathematical testing would give you a result as well as an error rate. for example in statistical testing you can give a confidence level and an error rate. That would make such tests a lot more objective than you claim. For DNA for example if the result is 99.97 , it would mean that there's a 0.03% error. That would account for the error but yet continue to be objective. Fingerprint testing has shown to have error rates ranging to 20%, yet it's a widely accepted and used objective test. (error rate is tested by doing multiple tests in multiple labs)
The subjectiveness of numerical data does not come from the numerical data itself, but from the conclusion drawn from it. For example, the number of days credit taken by a debtor is calculated as Debtors/Sales x 365 Days. Assume Co. A grants 30 days credit term to its customers. From January 1st to December 30th, Co. A made sales of $100,000, all of which have been paid up. On the last day of the financial year, Co. A makes another credit sale worth $100,000 to a debtor, which has not been paid up. At the end of the financial year:
No. of days for debtor collection = $100,000 Debtors / $200,000 Sales x 365 Days
= 183 Days
Co. A grants 30 days credit term to its customers, is the company making a lot of bad debts? 183 days > 30 days, the statisticians would seem to think so. Recall that the last sale was made on the last day of the financial year, which made up half of the total number of sales for the whole year. This debtor, in fact, still has 29 days to go on his credit term, and all other sales are fully paid for.
Another example:
Co. B makes 10% profits a year, Co. C makes 90% profits a year. It would seem that Co. C would be a better investment. But what if Co. B actually makes $100 million sales with a cost of $90 million, and Co. C only made a sale of $1, costing $0.10?
$10 million v.s. $0.90 profit. Tells one a lot about how factual statistics is. But it's not that the figures are subjective, they are objective, i.e they do not depend on what people think. But it becomes a subjective fact when one bases an opinion (expert or non-expert) on the objective figures.
Regarding the error rates or confidence levels, I never said that the numerical or statistical data must be subjective. They are objective because they do not depend on what people think. But when one draws a conclusion from that objective data, that conclusion is subjective. That is, the conclusion is a subjective fact because it is based on something 'factual', but the conclusion is still subjective (based on individual character experience).
not to offend anyone but what do you know about their credentials and their profession? a lot of people refer to me as "legal expert" and I claim to know about the subject but that doesn't make me an expert in the correct sense. It's a self - proclaimed position. Furthermore it's quite interesting that people question "forensic musicologists who worked for FBI" as not having objective facts but yet there are open to accept unknown strangers as experts. I honestly can't understand people being so critical of what Sony/ Estate experts have said but yet they have no problems with accepting people only has nicknames and posting on fan forums as the ultimate experts. Is it because these fan experts are saying what you want to hear?
Even though they might be truthful about their professions yet you still need to question everyone's background and credentials. Like I said Dr. Shafer has a PhD, a medial diploma, board certification, he worked in multiple big universities, he has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, he's an editor at a journal, he does the modeling even used on the packaging. He's an expert determined by 3rd parties and decades of background - not because he said so.
What do you know about Bumper, Grent, me or anyone else to classify them as experts? furthermore you need to compare them to other experts. For example Bruce Swedien who worked with word famous artists for decades says it's Michael. Why should Grent's opinion be more credible than Bruce Swedien?
and finally you need to account for bias. No one here is free of bias. So even though you might have highly respectful experts here unfortunately every one of us is plagued by bias hence it would negatively affect the credibility of anyone's "expert opinion".
No I value experts from other areas. As long as they are experts and have comparable credentials.
People tend to refer to you as the 'legal expert' because you're damn good at convincing others just by being confident. I consider you the 'legal expert' because you're 'more expert' than myself and others, as far as I can tell.
I tend to have considerable respect for people who can critically argue their points with verifiable evidence. And even if said evidence may never be known to me to be either true or false, such as BUMPER's knowledge of voiceless and voiced speech or whatever one calls it, I do take these points into consideration if the argument is convincing enough. After all, I'm not in court, I don't have the luxury of time to verify claims through researching hundreds of journal articles and the like, although once in a while, I do skim-read.
I don't exactly shudder at the idea of titles or credentials. I mean, Dr. White's certainly didn't match his testimony.
The reason why I might not consider Bruce Swedien is because he is out of bounds for questioning. So far, all I've gotten is hearsay from the Estate's 'comfort' letter and thus, I am not convinced. Nor am I moved by Teddy Riley's "This is Michael Jackson. You can tell from his screams", or something to that effect.
The fact that everyone is biased, is pretty much the case for politics debates as well, with both sides claiming greater biasedness on the other side. I guess, the only way to proceed is to read through arguments, see which is built upon piles of unverifiable assumptions, and simply discredit those.
Do note though, that everything I state here, is just for the sake of debate. I'm not dreaming of marching to court with Grent and BUMPER. I make do with whatever "expert" opinion is available because I don't bother that terribly with what happens with this debate or controversy.
