Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Aniram]

It just should not be necessary... I have the belief that Michael Jackson has an extremely distinct vocal identity that can be detected immediately. There's no need for "expert analysis" over the authenticity of Michael Jackson vocals... ever. That's what I think. I know because my whole internal chemistry changes when I hear his voice. My brain releases tons of happy chemicals, spurting all over. It's like my mouth salivating when I take a bite of something really sweet.

You know what I'm saying? Most of us fans don't need anybody to tell us if it's Michael Jackson singing or not. You just know... it's like when you have two dogs of the same kind and people come over and they can't tell them apart, but you're like, "This is obviously Porky. He's so fat, can't you tell?" "Honestly? No..." Over time they might grow to tell the dogs apart, but some people never will. I had 3 same breed dogs for a decade and some people never were able to tell them apart.

 

[WildStyle]

I'll quote Nas. "It ain't hard to tell".

 

[ivy]

It just should not be necessary... I have the belief that Michael Jackson has an extremely distinct vocal identity that can be detected immediately. There's no need for "expert analysis" over the authenticity of Michael Jackson vocals... ever. That's what I think. I know because my whole internal chemistry changes when I hear his voice. My brain releases tons of happy chemicals, spurting all over. It's like my mouth salivating when I take a bite of something really sweet.

You know what I'm saying? Most of us fans don't need anybody to tell us if it's Michael Jackson singing or not. You just know... it's like when you have two dogs of the same kind and people come over and they can't tell them apart, but you're like, "This is obviously Porky. He's so fat, can't you tell?" "Honestly? No..." Over time they might grow to tell the dogs apart, but some people never will. I had 3 same breed dogs for a decade and some people never were able to tell them apart.

I know what you mean but I also think that you are failing to understand what I mean.

For example Assume that there's a child that the mother doesn't know who the father is, or that another man came forward saying "I'm the father" or the current father said "I'm not the father". In this instance the mother saying to either man "I know you are the father, look to the eyes, the face the child exactly like you" doesn't mean a single thing as they are subjective. A DNA test is the only thing that would determine the paternity objectively.

The minute someone - in this instance some of the Jacksons - raised questions , answering "nah man my ears tell me it's Michael" was no longer enough. Due diligence, making sure that they don't have any consequences - especially legal- in the future required them to get an objective analysis with already established and accepted methods. So in this instance it's required, they would be really stupid if they didn't do it.

You know what would be better? If you (generally speaking) accept the reality of business and law. I understand and agree that for a fan "I trust my ears" is totally acceptable and enough determination. Similarly for example we all believed and never questioned Michael's innocence - even before hearing any trial testimony. However if you are a business or in a position of power, this subjective evaluations of "my ears" , "I know" etc. isn't enough. You need the objective tests. They are necessary.

 

[elapentela]

It just should not be necessary... I have the belief that Michael Jackson has an extremely distinct vocal identity that can be detected immediately. There's no need for "expert analysis" over the authenticity of Michael Jackson vocals... ever. That's what I think. I know because my whole internal chemistry changes when I hear his voice. My brain releases tons of happy chemicals, spurting all over. It's like my mouth salivating when I take a bite of something really sweet.

You know what I'm saying? Most of us fans don't need anybody to tell us if it's Michael Jackson singing or not. You just know... it's like when you have two dogs of the same kind and people come over and they can't tell them apart, but you're like, "This is obviously Porky. He's so fat, can't you tell?" "Honestly? No..." Over time they might grow to tell the dogs apart, but some people never will. I had 3 same breed dogs for a decade and some people never were able to tell them apart.

But it's just your story and it's great. However you can complain it's not Michael Jackson on the recordings and nothing will change until you will complain in the court. I suspect that in the court the "expert analysis" will be taken more seriously than your feelings regarding the authenticity of MJ's vocals.

 

[WildStyle]

So, kreen doesn't want to play my game for some reason. Ivy, you want to give it a shot?

 

[144000]

Jason Malachi is not an Mj impersonator. Never has been. He never even promoted himself as such. It was sheer accident that one song, Mamacita, was mistaken for Mj by a radio station which then caught the attention of TMZ. Jason personally went to great lengths to clear up the confusion including releasing videos of himself singing as well as explaining how it is him on the songs with other fans on forums. He was clearly heavily inspired by Michael and try to copy him both vocally and in his dance moves, but he was never an impersonator in any official way. It is the accidental confusion with songs like Mamacita and Let Me Let Go, which still fool some people to this day, that led to some labelling him as an impersonator. While he sounds similar in some ways, enough to fool casual listeners and some less attentive fans, the differences between his voice and Michael's are striking and easy to pick out to the initiated. Those very same differences, vibrato etc etc etc, are on each and every Cascio track. That is a fact that two years down the line, has still not been justified by any grounded explanation. If there was at least one Mj trademark in these songs, or some evidence that he had been involved, then that would be one thing. But there is nothing. It is only logical to be highly suspicious and want answers. Although, my fellow doubters will agree, the answers are obvious.

Also, let's be clear. What the Jacksons do or don't do is irrelevant. It has no bearing on what we hear on the songs and smacks of desperation. Can't explain the issues with the tracks or show any proof it's Michael? Shift the issue to the Jacksons. There could be any number of reasons why they don't sue. Speculating on that is pointless. As for the Estate, I don't see them saying they believe the songs are real. Even if they decided that they are not real then what could they do? Unless explicit evidence came to light in the public domain, and forced their hand into action, then why would they risk the enormous damage that would be done by suing or taking any other action against Cascio and co? it would be a public relations disaster. The scandal and media interest would be huge and highly damaging. People wouldn't care about the truth. The fact that the Estate had put fake songs on a record would be enough of a headline to destroy confidence in them. It is much safer and cost effective to let it lie.




Then nothing would change. It would simply be a case of trying to identify who the vocalist is because it clearly isn't Mj. Unfortunately or otherwise, Eddie used someone who already had an established track record of fooling people. It would have been better for him if Jason had never been heard of, but that wasn't the case.

and the Jacksons aren't even known for suing a lot. Michael didn't even do it a lot. We all know what happens when the Jacksons sue..the media comes out with claws and makes the atmosphere a circus and sways public opinion into juvenile status along with the juvenile status of the media. no matter what the outcome of a lawsuit by the Jacksons, it wouldn't matter in the court of public opinion, when the media gets finished with lying and deceiving, and willing people who are sheep to media will decide for themselves, and MJ fans will be in the impossible position they're always in..trying to convince people who find it easier, to believe mis information..and then other fans trying to convince the first set of fans that it's an impossible place to change the destructive atmosphere of thought of media convinced public, and one more reason to divide the fanbase.

Suing in the USA is a fruitless pursuit...especially for the Jacksons, no matter what. and i have a feeling some people who are suggesting that the Jacksons should sue if they think they have a case, know that.

However, Animram's beautiful argument that of course, believers don't want to take seriously(but is the only unflappable truth that knows no error, as proven time and time again), is proven in one way that believers will never be able to surmount. 'Something' is the reason why Michael is the best selling artist of all time. and that 'Something' is something that believers don't have a chance against. and that 'Something' is what Cascios don't have. That's all i need to say. Doesn't matter if the opposition has anything to say to that. Hey..it's like....love. nobody seems to have a problem with there being no words needed, when it comes to love. You can't help who you fall in love with. And the midas touch that Michael speaks of in 'Money' is what the believers don't have a case against. This has been repeated, more than once, but then, it's never been answered. But then, there is no answer to it. This is how we won. All the time on earth won't destroy this phrase...'Nothing like the original'. So i don't even know why the doubters keep at it in this thread. You've won. That is..we've won. Michael has won. So i'll really bow out this time. I think i feel good, now. *bows*

* i can see it now. somebody is in love and somebody wants to take the first somebody to court to prove that they're in love like they say they are. yeah..that's my point. lolol*

some truths that are higher than court of law truths, are just that..higher...and they can't be proven in the court of law, but people make no bones about them still being true.

 

[ivy]

So, kreen doesn't want to play my game for some reason. Ivy, you want to give it a shot?

you are failing to realize that your little game is a little meaningless when you have multiple believers here saying that they don't hear what you hear.

For example I have written that I think that technique wise this is not a match to Malachi -as he lacks the ability and flow - and I'm a lot more likely to believe another soundalike than Malachi. So you'll never get a confirmation to "sounds exactly like Malachi" from any believer so I'm failing to see why the push for the same questions.

Secondly your assumption "Does the Cascio lead vocalist sound exactly like the voice singing the 2nd verse of WBSS 2008? Because he should sound exactly like him. " is flawed. the only factor is not the studio environment to sound "exactly like him" . For example do you know how many takes WBSS was? (You can't compare a one take guide to a 20th take best vocal sample). Did WBSS verse had any processing - even simple stuff such as pitch correction, speed changes, and so on. And also the people that doesn't hear Malachi wouldn't magically start hearing him despite of how many questions you ask. So you won't get the answers you are looking for.

Simply put you are trying to ask questions to people from your perspective when they don't even remotely agree with your perspective to start with.

And honestly everyone has made up their minds in this issue, nothing, no discussion, no question will change anything or allow us to come to a middle ground. I don't understand why some think every question has to be answered and if not there has to be some sort of weakness. I mean I said I don't think this is Malachi a million times, I don't fell the need to say it a million times more. No one is reinventing the wheel here.

 

[MusicMan26]

You know what would be better? If you (generally speaking) accept the reality of business and law. I understand and agree that for a fan "I trust my ears" is totally acceptable and enough determination. Similarly for example we all believed and never questioned Michael's innocence - even before hearing any trial testimony. However if you are a business or in a position of power, this subjective evaluations of "my ears" , "I know" etc. isn't enough. You need the objective tests. They are necessary.

Unfortunately because of the reality of business and law, there's the possibly that they may (at least, and hopefully, temporarily) get away with what they did.

 

[WildStyle]

you are failing to realize that your little game is a little meaningless when you have multiple believers here saying that they don't hear what you hear.

For example I have written that I think that technique wise this is not a match to Malachi -as he lacks the ability and flow - and I'm a lot more likely to believe another soundalike than Malachi. So you'll never get a confirmation to "sounds exactly like Malachi" from any believer so I'm failing to see why the push for the same questions.

Secondly your assumption "Does the Cascio lead vocalist sound exactly like the voice singing the 2nd verse of WBSS 2008? Because he should sound exactly like him. " is flawed. the only factor is not the studio environment to sound "exactly like him" . For example do you know how many takes WBSS was? (You can't compare a one take guide to a 20th take best vocal sample). Did WBSS verse had any processing - even simple stuff such as pitch correction, speed changes, and so on. And also the people that doesn't hear Malachi wouldn't magically start hearing him despite of how many questions you ask. So you won't get the answers you are looking for.

Simply put you are trying to ask questions to people from your perspective when they don't even remotely agree with your perspective to start with.

And honestly everyone has made up their minds in this issue, nothing, no discussion, no question will change anything or allow us to come to a middle ground. I don't understand why some think every question has to be answered and if not there has to be some sort of weakness. I mean I said I don't think this is Malachi a million times, I don't fell the need to say it a million times more. No one is reinventing the wheel here.

If you look at the second question, you'll see I asked who it sounds closer to. Use your ears. Tell me. I don't care how you answer as long as you answer honestly. If you'll look at my answer I didn't even say "perfect match to Malachi". I said "sounds closer to Malachi". As for the first question... agree to disagree. It should be a perfect match to at least one freaking song, and very close for the rest. No studio wizardry changes your voice that much. If he recorded WBSS 2008 at the same time as the other tracks, there should not be much difference and certainly no need to process one vocal performance one way, and 12 other vocal performances an entirely different way. That's not logical. And you still sound the same in a first take as you do a 1000th take. The performances are different, that's all. Especially for a singer of Michael's skill. You may know that the vocal on Black or White is a first take "scratch vocal". I think the real reason a believer will not answer my simple questions is because it makes them uncomfortable.

 

[elapentela]

If you look at the second question, you'll see I asked who it sounds closer to. Use your ears. Tell me. I don't care how you answer as long as you answer honestly. If you'll look at my answer I didn't even say "perfect match to Malachi". I said "sounds closer to Malachi". As for the first question... agree to disagree. It should be a perfect match to at least one freaking song, and very close for the rest. No studio wizardry changes your voice that much. If he recorded WBSS 2008 at the same time as the other tracks, there should not be much difference and certainly no need to process one vocal performance one way, and 12 other vocal performances an entirely different way. That's not logical. And you still sound the same in a first take as you do a 1000th take. The performances are different, that's all. Especially for a singer of Michael's skill. You may know that the vocal on Black or White is a first take "scratch vocal". I think the real reason a believer will not answer my simple questions is because it makes them uncomfortable.

It's not uncomfortable. It's just boring. How many times you can go in circle the same way? You will get dizzy. Turn around 180 and take the other direction.

 

[WildStyle]

I haven't seen a believer answer those specific questions. Read the questions. It's not hard. Let's get to the heart of this matter. No more excuses. Just tell me what you hear.

Does the Cascio vocalist sound just like the voice singing the 2nd verse of WBSS 2008?

Does he sound closer to this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOwsfKZunvA or this guyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrB0ditWv4Y ?

If it's boring, then what are we even doing here? To anyone who can't answer these simple questions, why are you even in this thread? So far the 3 prominent believers in this thread have all completely sidestepped the questions. Not a good look.

There are only 2 possible answers for each question.

Question 1 - Yes/No
Question 2 - 1st link/2nd link

If anyone is scared of these questions they shouldn't even be in this debate IMO.

 

[ivy]

If you look at the second question, you'll see I asked who it sounds closer to. Use your ears. Tell me. I don't care how you answer as long as you answer honestly. If you'll look at my answer I didn't even say "perfect match to Malachi". I said "sounds closer to Malachi". As for the first question... agree to disagree. It should be a perfect match to at least one freaking song, and very close for the rest. No studio wizardry changes your voice that much. If he recorded WBSS 2008 at the same time as the other tracks, there should not be much difference and certainly no need to process one vocal performance one way, and 12 other vocal performances an entirely different way. That's not logical. And you still sound the same in a first take as you do a 1000th take. The performances are different, that's all. Especially for a singer of Michael's skill. You may know that the vocal on Black or White is a first take "scratch vocal". I think the real reason a believer will not answer my simple questions is because it makes them uncomfortable.

I already answered you, what more do you want honestly? In case you didn't get the answer it was "I disagree with you , the end".

This never ending push and not even accepting an answer and being disrespectful towards answers is the main reason many people - at least me - feel no need to answer questions. You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. Why can't we move on and why do you need to focus on "my two questions" thingy for ever?

 

[WildStyle]

Being disrespectful? How so? And no you didn't answer. The question wasn't "do you agree with me?" It wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing with me. It was about simply listening to some specific audio and telling what you heard. You could have answered the questions completely opposite to how I did if that's what you really heard with your ears. Why did all the believers get so offended by my question? Why is it so difficult to give a straight answer? What are we even here for? Is this thread not about questionable vocals recorded at the Cascio home studio? WBSS 2008 was recorded there, and supposedly so were the 12 Cascio tracks. We have the audio. We have ears. Ok, let's get down to business. What's the big problem? Sorry, but to me it seems that you all are just dodging these specific questions because your answers would be more in line with the doubters point of view and you just don't want to give an inch. Sorry, but that's how I interpret it. I am, and I know every doubter in this thread is open to answering any question posed by a believer at any time. It would be nice if it worked both ways.

 

[StellaJackson]

The forensic reports are almost certainly not a comparison between “the Cascio singer” and Jason Malachi: the Estate probably didn’t even know who that nobody was when they made the tests. It’s fans like you who have made JM part of this: he didn’t have anything to do with it until you brought him publicity, which is deliciously ironic.

Wrong. You do realise that the Estate, including John Branca and Howard Weitzemann, were investigating Jason Malachi up to three weeks before Breaking News was heard by the public? You need to get your facts straight. It was them who identified him first. And the extent of their investigation were several phone calls to question his involvement, along with a further call from John Doelp at Sony asking the same thing. He denied it. End of investigation.

 

[ivy]

Being disrespectful? How so? And no you didn't answer. The question wasn't "do you agree with me?" It wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing with me. It was about simply listening to some specific audio and telling what you heard. You could have answered the questions completely opposite to how I did if that's what you really heard with your ears.

uhm that's how I already answered, didn't you get it? You had written your own answers in your latest post and I disagree with your answers mean that I'm saying the complete opposite of them. I also think that the assumption you had in your first question is flawed hence the question is flawed.

and what is disrespectful is that even though I have answered that you are going on saying I didn't answer and/or people are scared. the reality is that you are refusing to accept my answers that are different than your opinion and for the future you'll probably be a lot more disrespectful by talking about hearing ability or excuses or anything similar.

Your push about these questions is also useless because yes we have ears but we already know that we hear different things. So what are you really trying to achieve here when you damn well know that there's a group of people that doesn't hear what you hear?

Anyway I'm done with this. Don't be surprised when next time I ignore any and all questions. It's not because I'm afraid or I don't have an answer, it'll be because I'm annoyed with "you didn't answer my question" BS even though I did and further explained it twice. (I actually gave a lot more reasoning than a simple yes - no answer but you even fail to see that) It's waste of time for me to try to answer anything in such situations.

 

[StellaJackson]

The fact is that there are things on these songs which are not the natural vocal aspects of Mj and sound far closer to JM. Now let's break this down and have a look. Let's forget all the external stuff and focus on one aspect of the vocals themselves: the vibrato. It is clearly not the natural vibrato of Michael. He never had a vibrato before or since that sounded anything like that. It is far closer to the vibrato of Jason. Now if you believe the songs are Michael, you can still admit that without having to say it is actually Jason singing. It just means that there has to be another explanation right? People talk about "processing" but that's really just a blanket term. It must be possible to identify exactly what type of "processing" caused this and to back it up with some evidence/examples. Michael didn't record 12 songs and then someone came along and waved a magic wand and created that vibrato, which is the same vibrato that Jason has. So if it's not Jason how did it get there? It certainly isn't intentional. Nobody would deliberately create such an awful uncontrolled vibrato, it must be a by product of some type of "processing". I could record myself singing a song in a studio of similar quality to the Cascio studio and "process" my vocal a 100 different ways and I must be able to achieve that vibrato by accident somehow. Let's break it down...

1. It is Michael singing.
2. It is not Michael's natural vibrato so....
3. This is how it got there.

So my question is, what is the specific software or studio technique that was used on the Cascio vocals that would, as a by product, cause such a vibrato to occur and can evidence and previous examples of this be provided? The vibrato occurred at the Cascio end as it is on all 12 versions submitted by Eddie Cascio. So he should be the first person to answer this. Of course he never has. But it must be answerable. Otherwise, when everything else is taken into consideration, there is only one other explanation.

 

[kreen]

kreen, you still haven't answered.

Is the question whether Monster sounds closer to WBSS 2008 than to that Malachi guy? Here's the thing : they all sorta sound close to each other. It's like you're asking me : here's diet pepsi, diet coke, regular coke with a bit of water added in, and Coke zero with a bit of sugar added in. Now can you tell which is which?

IN FACT, all of those different voices and singers we're comparing are so similar to one another -- either because they're the same person, or different persons trying to sound like one another, or because they're sometime artificially lowered, or artificially sped up -- that a case could be made that the Cascio singer sometimes doesn't even sound like himself. The voice on All I Need is as "different" from that on BN as the voice on BN is "different" from WBSS 2008.

 

[kreen]

It just should not be necessary... I have the belief that Michael Jackson has an extremely distinct vocal identity that can be detected immediately. There's no need for "expert analysis" over the authenticity of Michael Jackson vocals... ever. That's what I think. I know because my whole internal chemistry changes when I hear his voice. My brain releases tons of happy chemicals, spurting all over. It's like my mouth salivating when I take a bite of something really sweet.

You know what I'm saying? Most of us fans don't need anybody to tell us if it's Michael Jackson singing or not. You just know... it's like when you have two dogs of the same kind and people come over and they can't tell them apart, but you're like, "This is obviously Porky. He's so fat, can't you tell?" "Honestly? No..." Over time they might grow to tell the dogs apart, but some people never will. I had 3 same breed dogs for a decade and some people never were able to tell them apart.

Yeah I'm sorry but that's not it works in real life. "I just feel it in my bones" is not reasonnable proof of anything. Can you imagine a juge releasing a criminal without looking at the evidence, because "he just knows" he's innocent?

Also take into account that there's a lot of other people who feel just as strongly in their hearts that the Cascio songs are real. They're "salivating" just like you are. So whose saliva are we going to trust?

 

[kreen]

Wrong. You do realise that the Estate, including John Branca and Howard Weitzemann, were investigating Jason Malachi up to three weeks before Breaking News was heard by the public? You need to get your facts straight. It was them who identified him first. And the extent of their investigation were several phone calls to question his involvement, along with a further call from John Doelp at Sony asking the same thing. He denied it. End of investigation.

So, can I count on your $500 then? Will you help me sue the Casicos? You have all the proof, all the certainty, you have all of this love for your beloved MJ, some of you here sound like you have almost a religious view of MJ (I don't : I'm a fan of his music and I like the man, but I don't see him as an angel from Heaven, sorry) : so who here is going to put up 500$ and get to the truth of this matter?

Stella, you're actually the perfect person to lead this project. You have given this issue more thought, you have done more research, you have more info than anybody else. You know how to write; you're articulate. It's your destiny to lead this. I'll contribute financially, and I'll even help rounding up other fans willing to contribute money.

Come on, it will be like taking money from a baby, seeing as how it's OBVIOUSLY Malachi on the Cascio tracks.

WildStyle, 144000 : you guys sure have a big mouth. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

 

[kreen]

So my question is, what is the specific software or studio technique that was used on the Cascio vocals that would, as a by product, cause such a vibrato to occur and can evidence and previous examples of this be provided? The vibrato occurred at the Cascio end as it is on all 12 versions submitted by Eddie Cascio. So he should be the first person to answer this. Of course he never has. But it must be answerable. Otherwise, when everything else is taken into consideration, there is only one other explanation.

The sound engineer I talked to -- you all read that conversation -- says the vibrato could be the product of some sound software that was applied -- liberally -- to the tracks. The same vibrato being on JM's stuff could be the result of him using the same software. The idea that -- in this day and age of CGI characters, guys jumping from space onto Earth and talking IPads -- the idea that there isn't a way to produce that vibrato with software or production techniques is ridiculous. This ain't 1923.

Anyway, all of this is moot : the Estate say they have proof. Let's force their hands and have them show what proof it is they have.

 

[SoCav]

Is the question whether Monster sounds closer to WBSS 2008 than to that Malachi guy? Here's the thing : they all sorta sound close to each other. It's like you're asking me : here's diet pepsi, diet coke, regular coke with a bit of water added in, and Coke zero with a bit of sugar added in. Now can you tell which is which?

See, this is very interesting. To me it is baffling that the WBSS verse (MJ) and Jason sound so similar to you. And I don't mean this as a knock on you in any way. It's just that to me, apart from some surface-level similarities (e.g. both are relatively high-pitched) they really sound quite different. Similarly, I was also very surprised when so many people believed Jean Walker to be MJ when Pentum posted one of his snippets here earlier this year (without mentioning that it was not MJ). There is just a fundamental difference between the voices that is hard to put into words, but (imo) easy to hear.

Again, I think it might not be a good idea to discuss the extent to which voice recognition capabilities/musicality or whatever may be of influence in this debate, because one side will just perceive the other as arrogant and overconfident and it will probably not lead to anything constructive. But I cannot help but think that this does play a signifcant part in this debate.

 

[eXceLOfFam1]

The sound engineer I talked to -- you all read that conversation -- says the vibrato could be the product of some sound software that was applied -- liberally -- to the tracks. The same vibrato being on JM's stuff could be the result of him using the same software. The idea that -- in this day and age of CGI characters, guys jumping from space onto Earth and talking IPads -- the idea that there isn't a way to produce that vibrato with software or production techniques is ridiculous. This ain't 1923.

Anyway, all of this is moot : the Estate say they have proof. Let's force their hands and have them show what proof it is they have.

your post shows that you are not too knowledgeable on singing and how the voice works, if you have ever heard Malachi sing live you would know that his vibrato is not gained from processing, so no it is not software that is causing the vibrato in any malachi song, melodyne can be used to change vibrato but are you telling me that they applied the process to EVERY note on EVERY cascio song!? not likely. i've heard every cascio song and the singing technique is not consistent with any michael jackson DEMO, fall again sounds like michael jackson through and through, no mistaking it. there are too many excuses with the cascio songs. The fact that Jason Malachi has fallen off the face of the planet musically is a telling story, if he was not guilty this situation would be the perfect FREE MASS promotion for this guy, this would be his ticket.

tho i do agree with you that the estate needs to stop bullshitting and put this to bed if they have proof

 

[ivy]

melodyne can be used to change vibrato but are you telling me that they applied the process to EVERY note on EVERY cascio song!? not likely.

melodyne can be used to make auto corrections on the whole song or it can be used manually on single notes.

I think the question should be who did the processing and how? Teddy Riley before his breakdown had said that the processing was already done on the vocals and that the Cascio screwed them. Assuming that Eddie not being that knowledgebable / expert on the audio processing, he could have simply put the song to melodyne, and made it to do a 100% automatic pitch correction / modulation.

Anyone knowledgeable would tell you that such can cause problems and actually manual and note by note minor (not more than 50-60%) corrections are a lot better and more natural sounding.

-------------------------------

@Stella

Actually I think vibrato is the weakest point in this debate.

I mentioned that I knew some musicians who aren't that interested in Michael or Malachi or this debate. However when mentioned to them 2 years ago and a brief listen to Breaking News made them mention the possibility of some sort of tremolo effect (which explains the "goat"). They also mentioned a possibility of wrong recording or a single feed recording - which was above my level of understanding. Actually when you start using words like uncontrolled or unnatural you are probably mentioning a processing or a effect added. And processing can change Vibrato. It's the pitch modulation tool on Melodyne.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add : Actually I found put that a person's vibrato can also change for the worse.

Therefore, a wobble (slow wide vibrato) is the result of a lack of excitement, poor muscle tone, or fatigue. (This suggests again that physical fitness and good vocal conditioning is necessary.)

The slow, wide vibrato--a wobble--is unfortunately prevalent among choral singers. The culprit, in addition to the absence of an appoggio, is lack of physical and vocal exercise. Bending and stretching exercises are recommended during the warming-up period and in private. This will be a help to older singers.


--------------------------------------------

Let's post some quotes

"Pitch Drift linearizes pitch changes within a note. For example, if the pitch sort of drifts flat toward the end of the note, you can lessen (or even eliminate) this drift. Pitch Modulation can increase vibrato or flatten it—and even change the vibrato’s phase. Other tools include change amplitude, change formant, and even copy/paste so you can build harmonies and doubling based on the original vocal."

"The Pitch Modulation tool is used to flatten or exaggerate the curve of a note’s pitch. Flattening out a note’s curve reduces vibrato, scoops, or pitch bends, or, in contrast, increasing the modulation exaggerates those effects. You can also use the Pitch Modulation tool to create an Auto-Tune effect where all pitches are strictly conformed to the pitch centers, resulting in a tuned robot-like sound."

"There are other factors, such as pitch drift & pitch modulation (of which you can see in the Melodyne graph... represented with those wavy, squiggly, curvy lines). These could represent certain articulations in a human singing voice... such as vibrato- depth & speed, scoops, drops, falls, flips, mordents, inverted mordents etc. (basically all the components that give the singer style)

Having an individual pitch snapped/locked (technically correct on a graph at a precise pitch frequency, will interfere & add or even take away these style anomalies. But there are other pitch drift & modulation tools to make manual edits... very tedious sometimes.

That's the reason why the infamous Auto-Tune sounds the way it does.. (like a robot & un-human). Besides it locking/correcting the actual pitch to a key center, it also interprets & tries to correct all the articulations that actually make a human sound like a human!"

"The Pitch-Modulation Tool works brilliantly. The precise pitch of a note is represented by a red line, which can wiggle all over the place, over many keys if your singer can’t track well. Using the this tool — clicking on a note then dragging reduces the pitch dynamics until they ultimately resemble a flattened line. This is all done live, so when one clicks the audio file it plays on a constant loop, and one can actually hear the dynamics being sucked out of the voice. And when the dynamics are totally flat, vocals sound robotic, which can be used as a creative effect."

"Problems caused by vibrato changing speed when audio is stretched or time-compressed can be mitigated in Melodyne by editing vibrato depth (you can't change speed) until the result sounds natural"

"when I stretch or shorten a note, the speed of the vibrato changes unmusically. you can't preserve the vibrato speed when time-stretching. The only workaround I can think of is to completely remove any pitch modulations, do the time-stretching, and re-build an artificial vibrato by splitting a blob into multiple blobs and detune them up and down in an alternating way. Use the pitch transitions for smoother vibratos. It's a lot of work, though, to make it sound somewhat natural."

" Is the modulation tools limitations. As wonderfully simple as the tool is, it only allows you to change already existing vibrato. Which really becomes an issue once you especially get into time stretching. For instance, i'd like to get an electric guitar note to sustain longer than is possible in the real world even with the best equipment available. But i'd also like to bend it up and down smoothly. If i record the guitar with me playing vibrato, it gets slowed down too far. See how this is a problem?

Sure, there are workarounds. Like copying existing vibrato and throwing the note info onto my guitar note. But that seems to be a pain. Also, i could maybe cut up the "vibrato-free" note, place some notes up a step higher, and use note connections that ramp up slowly.

Not to mention on more sensitive instruments, like the human voice. It'd be even more difficult to retain naturalness."

"If there is a limitation to the Melodyne plugin it is that it has a hard time correcting vibrato. It seems to center the fundamental of the note, rather than force the pitch variation to defined limits, like auto-tune does."

 

[kreen]

melodyne can be used to make auto corrections on the whole song or it can be used manually on single notes.

I think the question should be who did the processing and how? Teddy Riley before his breakdown had said that the processing was already done on the vocals and that the Cascio screwed them. Assuming that Eddie not being that knowledgebable / expert on the audio processing, he could have simply put the song to melodyne, and made it to do a 100% automatic pitch correction / modulation.

Anyone knowledgeable would tell you that such can cause problems and actually manual and note by note minor (not more than 50-60%) corrections are a lot better and more natural sounding.

-------------------------------

@Stella

Actually I think vibrato is the weakest point in this debate.

I mentioned that I knew some musicians who aren't that interested in Michael or Malachi or this debate. However when mentioned to them 2 years ago and a brief listen to Breaking News made them mention the possibility of some sort of tremolo effect (which explains the "goat"). They also mentioned a possibility of wrong recording or a single feed recording - which was above my level of understanding. Actually when you start using words like uncontrolled or unnatural you are probably mentioning a processing or a effect added. And processing can change Vibrato. It's the pitch modulation tool on Melodyne.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add : Actually I found put that a person's vibrato can also change for the worse.

Therefore, a wobble (slow wide vibrato) is the result of a lack of excitement, poor muscle tone, or fatigue. (This suggests again that physical fitness and good vocal conditioning is necessary.)

The slow, wide vibrato--a wobble--is unfortunately prevalent among choral singers. The culprit, in addition to the absence of an appoggio, is lack of physical and vocal exercise. Bending and stretching exercises are recommended during the warming-up period and in private. This will be a help to older singers.


--------------------------------------------

Let's post some quotes

"Pitch Drift linearizes pitch changes within a note. For example, if the pitch sort of drifts flat toward the end of the note, you can lessen (or even eliminate) this drift. Pitch Modulation can increase vibrato or flatten it—and even change the vibrato’s phase. Other tools include change amplitude, change formant, and even copy/paste so you can build harmonies and doubling based on the original vocal."

"The Pitch Modulation tool is used to flatten or exaggerate the curve of a note’s pitch. Flattening out a note’s curve reduces vibrato, scoops, or pitch bends, or, in contrast, increasing the modulation exaggerates those effects. You can also use the Pitch Modulation tool to create an Auto-Tune effect where all pitches are strictly conformed to the pitch centers, resulting in a tuned robot-like sound."

"There are other factors, such as pitch drift & pitch modulation (of which you can see in the Melodyne graph... represented with those wavy, squiggly, curvy lines). These could represent certain articulations in a human singing voice... such as vibrato- depth & speed, scoops, drops, falls, flips, mordents, inverted mordents etc. (basically all the components that give the singer style)

Having an individual pitch snapped/locked (technically correct on a graph at a precise pitch frequency, will interfere & add or even take away these style anomalies. But there are other pitch drift & modulation tools to make manual edits... very tedious sometimes.

That's the reason why the infamous Auto-Tune sounds the way it does.. (like a robot & un-human). Besides it locking/correcting the actual pitch to a key center, it also interprets & tries to correct all the articulations that actually make a human sound like a human!"

"The Pitch-Modulation Tool works brilliantly. The precise pitch of a note is represented by a red line, which can wiggle all over the place, over many keys if your singer can’t track well. Using the this tool — clicking on a note then dragging reduces the pitch dynamics until they ultimately resemble a flattened line. This is all done live, so when one clicks the audio file it plays on a constant loop, and one can actually hear the dynamics being sucked out of the voice. And when the dynamics are totally flat, vocals sound robotic, which can be used as a creative effect."

"Problems caused by vibrato changing speed when audio is stretched or time-compressed can be mitigated in Melodyne by editing vibrato depth (you can't change speed) until the result sounds natural"

"when I stretch or shorten a note, the speed of the vibrato changes unmusically. you can't preserve the vibrato speed when time-stretching. The only workaround I can think of is to completely remove any pitch modulations, do the time-stretching, and re-build an artificial vibrato by splitting a blob into multiple blobs and detune them up and down in an alternating way. Use the pitch transitions for smoother vibratos. It's a lot of work, though, to make it sound somewhat natural."

" Is the modulation tools limitations. As wonderfully simple as the tool is, it only allows you to change already existing vibrato. Which really becomes an issue once you especially get into time stretching. For instance, i'd like to get an electric guitar note to sustain longer than is possible in the real world even with the best equipment available. But i'd also like to bend it up and down smoothly. If i record the guitar with me playing vibrato, it gets slowed down too far. See how this is a problem?

Sure, there are workarounds. Like copying existing vibrato and throwing the note info onto my guitar note. But that seems to be a pain. Also, i could maybe cut up the "vibrato-free" note, place some notes up a step higher, and use note connections that ramp up slowly.

Not to mention on more sensitive instruments, like the human voice. It'd be even more difficult to retain naturalness."

"If there is a limitation to the Melodyne plugin it is that it has a hard time correcting vibrato. It seems to center the fundamental of the note, rather than force the pitch variation to defined limits, like auto-tune does."

Without knowing a single thing about all of those software applications, I never believed for a second the doubters' assertion that "such a vibrato can't be the result of post-production work on the vocals". That always felt too convenient, like they talked to one guy -- on their side -- who said it wasn't possible, and then ran away with it without doing any research.

 

[SoCav]

Here we go about the vibrato again. I also agree that this is just one element that is off about the vocals and do not think it is the most important one.

My 2 cents about the vibrato:

melodyne can be used to make auto corrections on the whole song or it can be used manually on single notes.

I think the question should be who did the processing and how? Teddy Riley before his breakdown had said that the processing was already done on the vocals and that the Cascio screwed them. Assuming that Eddie not being that knowledgebable / expert on the audio processing, he could have simply put the song to melodyne, and made it to do a 100% automatic pitch correction / modulation.

I do not see why it is really relevant who did the processing. I am not sure on what the assumption that Eddie knows very little about audio processing is based, but I think this is quite unlikely. Melodyne has (unfortunately) become a rather standard part of the toolkit of today's producers. It is also actually a very easy and accessible plug-in. It really only takes about an hour to get a solid basic understanding of it. Furthermore, if Eddie for some reason messed up in Melodyne, I do not see why he could not have given the raw, unprocessed vocals to Teddy Riley and the other producers working on the 'Michael' album.

I think the crucial question is not who did it, but what kind of processing they (supposedly) used and why. Teddy Riley gave the answer to this: Melodyne was used. More specifically, they used the pitch correction tool in Melodyne because, according to Teddy, there were a lot of flat notes that they wanted to correct. The Pitch Correction and Pitch Modulation tool are separate in Melodyne. The latter has to do with vibrato. Teddy, however, said that Pitch Correction was used. All this tool does is change the pitch of the vocals (you can either do this automatically or manually by simply dragging the parts of the vocal you want to correct to the correct note). It does not alter the modulation of the vocals and therefore cannot explain the uncharacteristic vibrato.

If Teddy had said: "we wanted to add some vibrato to MJ's vocals so we used the pitch modulation tool to do this" or "the vibrato was a bit off at times, so we used Melodyne to correct this," then there might have been something to that. The question would still be why they would want to do that and it would mean that they did an incredibly crappy job (because the vibrato sounds dreadful), but at least his explanation would have made a bit more sense.

Even if you do not believe me on this and you still believe that correcting the pitch of notes creates a very fast vibrato, then keep in mind that the shaky vibrato is all over the songs. In other words, it would thus mean that MJ sang all those notes where you hear that shaky vibrato off-key. Do you really think that Michael, who has always been praised by the people he worked with for his excellent pitch control, would sing so badly?

There are some other reasons why I think Melodyne is not the cause of the vibrato, but I'll skip those (it's not as if this post is not already getting way too long...)

And processing can change Vibrato. It's the pitch modulation tool on Melodyne.

Again, I don't think anybody denies that a vibrato can be digitally altered. The key here is why they would do that.

Edited to add : Actually I found put that a person's vibrato can also change for the worse.

Therefore, a wobble (slow wide vibrato) is the result of a lack of excitement, poor muscle tone, or fatigue. (This suggests again that physical fitness and good vocal conditioning is necessary.)

The slow, wide vibrato--a wobble--is unfortunately prevalent among choral singers. The culprit, in addition to the absence of an appoggio, is lack of physical and vocal exercise. Bending and stretching exercises are recommended during the warming-up period and in private. This will be a help to older singers.

Hmm, I am not sure what are you thinking of here. With regards to vocal conditioning, we know from the people that worked with MJ during his final years that his voice was in excellent shape. We have also heard it ourselves on tracks from the same era as the Cascio tracks and from later on as well, during the This Is It rehearsals. Also, the vibrato that we hear in the Cascio songs is the opposite of a slow wide vibrato, it's a fast vibrato. This lady explains the difference quite well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjc66iZb2oA&t=1m21s

I'll respond to the quotes you posted now. Although I think they are interesting, I don't really think most of them are really relevant here.

"Pitch Drift linearizes pitch changes within a note. For example, if the pitch sort of drifts flat toward the end of the note, you can lessen (or even eliminate) this drift. Pitch Modulation can increase vibrato or flatten it—and even change the vibrato’s phase. Other tools include change amplitude, change formant, and even copy/paste so you can build harmonies and doubling based on the original vocal."

"The Pitch Modulation tool is used to flatten or exaggerate the curve of a note’s pitch. Flattening out a note’s curve reduces vibrato, scoops, or pitch bends, or, in contrast, increasing the modulation exaggerates those effects. You can also use the Pitch Modulation tool to create an Auto-Tune effect where all pitches are strictly conformed to the pitch centers, resulting in a tuned robot-like sound."

"There are other factors, such as pitch drift & pitch modulation (of which you can see in the Melodyne graph... represented with those wavy, squiggly, curvy lines). These could represent certain articulations in a human singing voice... such as vibrato- depth & speed, scoops, drops, falls, flips, mordents, inverted mordents etc. (basically all the components that give the singer style)

"Problems caused by vibrato changing speed when audio is stretched or time-compressed can be mitigated in Melodyne by editing vibrato depth (you can't change speed) until the result sounds natural"

"when I stretch or shorten a note, the speed of the vibrato changes unmusically. you can't preserve the vibrato speed when time-stretching. The only workaround I can think of is to completely remove any pitch modulations, do the time-stretching, and re-build an artificial vibrato by splitting a blob into multiple blobs and detune them up and down in an alternating way. Use the pitch transitions for smoother vibratos. It's a lot of work, though, to make it sound somewhat natural."

Again, all these quotes say is that the pitch modulation tool can alter the way the vibrato sounds. I don't think this has ever been disputed.

Having an individual pitch snapped/locked (technically correct on a graph at a precise pitch frequency, will interfere & add or even take away these style anomalies. But there are other pitch drift & modulation tools to make manual edits... very tedious sometimes.

That's the reason why the infamous Auto-Tune sounds the way it does.. (like a robot & un-human). Besides it locking/correcting the actual pitch to a key center, it also interprets & tries to correct all the articulations that actually make a human sound like a human!"

This has to do with Auto-Tune (and therefore is not really relevant here, I think). It differs from Melodyne in the sense that it 'snaps' the pitch to a key center. This is very artifical because humans do not sing exactly the precise note, there are always subtle nuances. In Melodyne, you can add more of these kinds of nuances because you can freely shift the vocal around (anywhere you want in between two different notes).

"The Pitch-Modulation Tool works brilliantly. The precise pitch of a note is represented by a red line, which can wiggle all over the place, over many keys if your singer can’t track well. Using the this tool — clicking on a note then dragging reduces the pitch dynamics until they ultimately resemble a flattened line. This is all done live, so when one clicks the audio file it plays on a constant loop, and one can actually hear the dynamics being sucked out of the voice. And when the dynamics are totally flat, vocals sound robotic, which can be used as a creative effect."

Here they are talking about removing vibrato and pitch drift, rather than adding it.

 

[SoCav]

Without knowing a single thing about all of those software applications, I never believed for a second the doubters' assertion that "such a vibrato can't be the result of post-production work on the vocals". That always felt too convenient, like they talked to one guy -- on their side -- who said it wasn't possible, and then ran away with it without doing any research.

As has been mentioned several times: the issue is not that a shaky vibrato cannot be the result of post-production work, but rather that the explanation that we have been given for the shaky vibrato simply does not make sense.

On top of that the vibrato, just like all the other vocal characteristics, matches up very well with Jason Malachi (although the vocals on some of the Cascio tracks are probably pitched up).

 

[144000]

Yeah I'm sorry but that's not it works in real life. "I just feel it in my bones" is not reasonnable proof of anything. Can you imagine a juge releasing a criminal without looking at the evidence, because "he just knows" he's innocent?

Also take into account that there's a lot of other people who feel just as strongly in their hearts that the Cascio songs are real. They're "salivating" just like you are. So whose saliva are we going to trust?

you know what..'i feel it in my bones' does work, because Michael has sold over seven hundred million copies. the majority of people obviously go by that. you'll never see a cascio sell over seven hundred million copies. milli vanilli became a cautionary tale instead of getting that far. frauds never get very far..and what they do get, is like sand. Michael's kids are comfortable, because we could 'feel him in our bones'. Dick Clark said that of all the thousands of artists he's ever worked with Michael was the most outstanding. You would never hear a respected one like a Dick Clark say that about a fraud. emptiness begets emptiness. fullness begets fullness. so be it. choices are choices.

Michael said 'you gotta feel it'. You disagree with Dick Clark saying that? Do the rest of the believers disagree with Dick Clark on that?

 

[ivy]

@SoCav

Well it's nice to see that we agree that vibrato is not the most important thing here.

there have been multiple people here that said "processing doesn't affect vibrato". The reason for the whole quotes from different sources was to show that "pitch modulation tool can alter the way the vibrato sounds". so depending on what is being done vibrato can be affected.

I'm also aware that the vibrato in questions isn't a wobble (slow and wide vibrato), it's tremolo which is also explained as "bleat" like which is I guess why we are seeing the mention of "goat" on this discussion. wobble quote was just added to show that external factors "lack of excitement, poor muscle tone, or fatigue" can actually affect the vibrato.

If Teddy had said: "we wanted to add some vibrato to MJ's vocals so we used the pitch modulation tool to do this" or "the vibrato was a bit off at times, so we used Melodyne to correct this," then there might have been something to that. The question would still be why they would want to do that and it would mean that they did an incredibly crappy job (because the vibrato sounds dreadful), but at least his explanation would have made a bit more sense.

Here's my point. Teddy did say that there have been processing before what he did - pitch correction. Do we know what was done before Teddy? He also mentioned the vocals were screwed.

As for the crappy job who did what becomes important IMO. Melodyne could be really easy, it detects all of the stuff automatically (although can have mistakes) and you can easily do a 100% automatic correction. However the results wouldn't be best. Even by a basic reading you can see the suggestions include not putting to much on Melodyne's automatic detection but check it and correct it manually, do not do 100% corrections, divide up the notes manually, and trust your ears for the best result rather than trusting Melodyne's estimations for automatic corrections. The later - manual and note by note- approach is better but it's a lot more tedious and time consuming and actually does require a certain level of skill and knowledge. An expert producer and a small time name would be different in their ability.

how about these ones? aren't they relevant to the speed up of the songs mentioned?

"Problems caused by vibrato changing speed when audio is stretched or time-compressed can be mitigated in Melodyne by editing vibrato depth (you can't change speed) until the result sounds natural"

"when I stretch or shorten a note, the speed of the vibrato changes unmusically. you can't preserve the vibrato speed when time-stretching.

---------------------

Unfortunately I'm not that knowledgeable about music. However as I said during a brief exchange 2 years back actual and decades long musicians / producers weren't phased by any of the vibrato arguments I presented to them. Unnatural effects of processing, possible tremolo effect , a recording error (which I failed to understand) etc were all mentioned. Who knows what would a uncontrolled reverb / echo would have on the vocals - shower recording?

Also very interestingly the one of the first things they mentioned was actually other voices being added. The Paula Abdul case (two different vocals to form a one composite lead) is actually quite common in the instances of weaker singers and the musicians has automatically assumed a similar addition was done in this instance to strengthen and fill the missing vocals - hence all the differences.

It was just an interesting thing for me.

 

[WildStyle]

uhm that's how I already answered, didn't you get it? You had written your own answers in your latest post and I disagree with your answers mean that I'm saying the complete opposite of them. I also think that the assumption you had in your first question is flawed hence the question is flawed. Do you want me to spell it out? (really?)

and what is disrespectful is that even though I have answered that you are going on saying I didn't answer and/or people are scared. the reality is that you are refusing to accept my answers that are different than your opinion and for the future you'll probably be a lot more disrespectful by talking about hearing ability or excuses or anything similar.

Your push about these questions is also useless because yes we have ears but we already know that we hear different things. So what are you really trying to achieve here when you damn well know that there's a group of people that doesn't hear what you hear?

Anyway I'm done with this back and forth. Don't be surprised when next time I ignore any and all questions. It's not because I'm afraid or I don't have an answer, it'll be because I'm annoyed with "you didn't answer my question" BS even though I did and further explained it twice. (I actually gave a lot more reasoning than a simple yes - no answer but you even fail to see that) It's waste of time for me to try to answer anything in such situations.

So, this then...

Does the Cascio singer sound just like the voice singing the 2nd verse in WBSS? Yes.

Does he sound closer to 1st link singer or 2nd link singer? 2nd link.

Those are your answers. Would have been a lot quicker if you just stated that in the first place rather than getting ultra defensive for no reason.

 

[WildStyle]

WildStyle, 144000 : you guys sure have a big mouth. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

kreen, I'm being no more vocal about this issue than you are. You don't know me, and I don't appreciate your comment.

And even if I had $500, I would only be willing to donate it if there was a completely laid out plan and things were in place ready to go forward. If I had $10,000, I'd donate it.