Latest on MJJC

Michael - The Great Album Debate

@Bumper

it's called double-tracking and it's not new. Beatles are kinda famous for it. Of course they went for the obvious chorus effect, as I said if you mix down the second vocal it won't be obvious. There's a program called Vocalign which perfectly matches two takes - same or different singer.

Look to after 3 min mark of a aligning example. Then you have to imagine that the dub is mixed down

[video=youtube_share;5Pt1P-o2QHM]http://youtu.be/5Pt1P-o2QHM[/video]

Note : Also refer to Bruce Swedien quotes. He used to say he would do 2-4 takes with Michael and then pan them left - right etc. They were double tracking Michael's leads as well - with his other takes of course.

" From doing the lead up close to doing the double and triple stacks and how he had michael take a step back for the double track. And then he would have him step back again and do a triple track. That brings more room into those tracks and added some size."


Some quotes

Yes, I do use vocal doubling. Often in choruses, but that's not a rule. Could be anywhere the vocal sounds like it needs to be thicker or fuller, and often to help it stand out from a dense backing track.

There are essentially two types of vocal doubling for me. There's the kind where the double is down about –6dB from the lead as a subtle enhancement. If you were to mute it you would definitely miss it, but when it's in you don't necessarily hear it as a double either. The other kind is an obvious effect, and it's where the lead + double are at the same level. Can sound pretty cool, but can also be cheesy if overused.

----

We never use voc align on a double of the same singer, if he/she is singing the same part in the same register. Only if that singer is signing a harmony to him/herself. The reason is it produces a very noticeable chorus effect. (unless your going for that) We typically use voc align to align different singers.

Note: we also very often have a different singer double the lead track instead of the original singer for the same reason. If you mix it -6 db down you don't notice the different voice, but you get a great texture without the chorus effect at all.

--------

perhaps for SoCav - http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/doubletracking.htm How about using pitch modulation to create a dub track?

and what is the flanger effect people mentioning that can happen during double tracking?
 
You can still hear it's 2 takes being played at the same time. If it were 2 different voices it would jump out even more. If one were significantly turned down it would only be for a subtle effect, which you probably wouldn't notice anyway unless you heard the acapella. Doesn't account for not hearing Michael.

Double tracking is not a technique used to meld voices into one. It's used to add weight and richness to a vocal part. You can hear when something is double tracked.
 
Last edited:
^^ The above video is not mixed in any way so of course you'll hear two voices. It's just showing how it is possible to match two different takes.

there's a lot more mixing techniques. I'm just giving you the basics.
 
Basically what I'm trying to say is that vocalign is not used to make you think there is only one voice singing. It's used to tighten up sloppy double tracking. Michael incidentally was undoubtably the best ever at double tracking his voice,
 
ivy said:
^^ The above video is not mixed in any way so of course you'll hear two voices. It's just showing how it is possible to match two different takes.

there's a lot more mixing techniques. I'm just giving you the basics.
Click to expand...

The only way to hide it would be as you said to turn one way down. Or to simply cut between vocal performances and never have one singing over the other at the same time.
 
kreen said:
I'd like to talk some more about the bridge on "For All Time" and the MJ vocals on WBSS 2008. I didn't much come on MJ forums during the Thriller 25 era so I missed most of the discussions that went on at that time.

Regarding the "For All Time" bridge : is it supposed to have been recorded at the Cascios'?

Regarding the WBSS 2008 MJ vocals : I remember some people being uncertain as to whether those vocals were new, or taken from one of the WBSS demos from 1982. Are we positive now that MJ sang new vocals for WBSS 2008?
Click to expand...

With regards to 'For All Time', the booklet only gives credits for keyboards to Angelikson Productions, but it's likely that he recorded the bridge vocals there.

WBSS 2008, the booklet says background vocals recorded by Angelikson Productions, but it's clear that Michael's verse and background vocals were recorded at the same time, so yes that was recorded there.

EDIT

I'd like to talk a bit about audio quality of Michael's vocals on WBSS 2008 vs the lead vocals on the Cascio tracks. I've put together a little audio sample of WBSS 2008 juxtaposed with Monster. Strictly as an audio quality comparison, not a voice comparison.

http://soundcloud.com/hermitcrab/wbss-2008-v-cascio

Now, all of these vocals were supposedly recorded in Eddie's home studio in 2007. What jumps out at me about the 2 is that the WBSS vocals do not have the clarity of Monster. I would describe them as more muffled, and just not as in your face. Monster sounds more hi-fidelity, while WBSS sounds a tad more lo-fi. If I had to guess, I'd say the 2 vocals went through 2 different vocal chains, and I wouldn't be surprised if 2 different microphones were used.
 
Last edited:
ivy;3727290 said:
@Bumper

it's called double-tracking and it's not new. Beatles are kinda famous for it. Of course they went for the obvious chorus effect, as I said if you mix down the second vocal it won't be obvious. There's a program called Vocalign which perfectly matches two takes - same or different singer.

Look to after 3 min mark of a aligning example. Then you have to imagine that the dub is mixed down

[video=youtube_share;5Pt1P-o2QHM]http://youtu.be/5Pt1P-o2QHM[/video]

Note : Also refer to Bruce Swedien quotes. He used to say he would do 2-4 takes with Michael and then pan them left - right etc. They were double tracking Michael's leads as well - with his other takes of course.

" From doing the lead up close to doing the double and triple stacks and how he had michael take a step back for the double track. And then he would have him step back again and do a triple track. That brings more room into those tracks and added some size."


Some quotes

Yes, I do use vocal doubling. Often in choruses, but that's not a rule. Could be anywhere the vocal sounds like it needs to be thicker or fuller, and often to help it stand out from a dense backing track.

There are essentially two types of vocal doubling for me. There's the kind where the double is down about –6dB from the lead as a subtle enhancement. If you were to mute it you would definitely miss it, but when it's in you don't necessarily hear it as a double either. The other kind is an obvious effect, and it's where the lead + double are at the same level. Can sound pretty cool, but can also be cheesy if overused.

----

We never use voc align on a double of the same singer, if he/she is singing the same part in the same register. Only if that singer is signing a harmony to him/herself. The reason is it produces a very noticeable chorus effect. (unless your going for that) We typically use voc align to align different singers.

Note: we also very often have a different singer double the lead track instead of the original singer for the same reason. If you mix it -6 db down you don't notice the different voice, but you get a great texture without the chorus effect at all.

--------

perhaps for SoCav - http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/doubletracking.htm How about using pitch modulation to create a dub track?

and what is the flanger effect people mentioning that can happen during double tracking?
Click to expand...


My understanding is that you can of course have several takes and match them. When doing so, I think that the reverb/echo is unavoidable; try to play two same songs at the same time on two different players and you'll understand what I am talking about. But I imagine that thanks to some softwares it is possible to remove that reverb/echo and indeed give the impression of a thicker voice.

However, I see this as stacking, not as blending into one unique voice. If every take is represented by one curve, those curves, no matter how closely stacked or superposed won't be able to create a new voice. They'll always contain two or more voices separately given the fact that the curves neither chemically interact, nor physically blend or merge in order to create a hybrid voice. This is probably also the reason why they are mainly used to give a kind of chorus effect.

In our case here, if James's and Michael's voice curves were stacked, it would be even more obvious as they are two different voices with two different characteristics and they'd probably sound as some kind of duet no matter how closely they'd be stacked. I am not a sound engineer, but someone correct me if I am wrong, they -physically speaking- couldn't sound as one hybrid and unique voice. And, the problem that we are having here is, stacked or not, thick or not, the lead voice on the Cascio tracks sound to be one unique voice + Michael's copy pasted voice from previous songs that was added here and there to fill in some gaps.

All in all, on the Cascio tracks, it doesn't seem that James's voice was used to support or fill in the supposed MJ's gaps, but it seems that MJ's voice and breaths were used to fill in the Cascio vocalist's gaps.


p.s. In order to illustrate what I want to say, here is an example:

in chemistry if we take two atoms of hydrogen and put them in presence of one atom of oxygen, we'll obtain H2O, in other words if we take two separate and different elements and mix them, we obtain a blended one which gives a completely new and unique element with its own unique characteristics. Hence in chemistry 1+1=1.

This cannot be compared to the stacked voices as there is no chemical reaction between two voices, only stacking and superposing which do not lead to a new and unique element with new characteristics. The two stacked voices keep their own characteristics separately the same way as if we would put hydrogen in one test tube and oxygen in the other test tube and put them side a side without allowing them to ever create any kind of chemical reaction. Which means that the hydrogen would keep its own characteristics and the oxygen its own the same way the stacked voices do keep their own respective characteristics. Hence in physics/maths 1+1=2.

In a nutshell, we cannot use chemical theory (1+1=1) and apply it to the Cascio voice stacking case. We have no choice but using the physical case (1+1=2). Hence, people should be able to tell at what point they hear James Porte (unless they claim that they hear two superposed voices (=duet) throughout the whole song on each Cascio track, but sorry personally I don't hear a duet in the lead vocals).
 
Last edited:
Bah, so much to read here. Are someone here saying that the lead vocals now in the Cascio songs are 2 people (porte and mj) mixed into 1, making it sound like 1 voice (which now sounds like jason)???
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
This is probably also the reason why they are mainly used to give a kind of chorus effect.
Click to expand...

The beatles used it fort the obvious chorus effect but if mixed properly it would not sound obvious - as mentioned in the quotes.

And you don't need to write this long, why don't you just listen to songs? For example in the paula abdul "All I need" according to you you should be able to hear 2 distinct vocals throughout the song. Or even listen to Michael Jackson songs that Bruce Swedien recorded. Are you hearing 3 Michael's singing in the leads? Do you the leads sound like a chorus? So go through any Michael Jackson song and tell us where you hear the double and triple track

edited to add : and please do not write things like "who cares about Paula Abdul", no one cares about Paula abdul but that songs are perfect examples that for a fact we know have composite leads (as the producers admitted to during testimony). So rather than this chemistry, physics, give me program names etc, just listening to them would have been a lot more easier.
 
ivy said:
wrong. beatles used it fort the obvious chorus effect but if mixed properly it would not sound obvious - as mentioned in the quotes.

And you don't need to write this long, why don't you just listen to songs? For example in the paula abdul "All I need" according to you you should be able to hear 2 distinct vocals throughout the song. Or even listen to Michael Jackson songs that Bruce Swedien recorded. Are you hearing 3 Michael's singing in the leads? Do you the leads sound like a chorus? So go through any Michael Jackson song and tell us where you hear the double and triple track

edited to add : and please do not write things like "who cares about Paula Abdul", no one cares about Paula abdul but that songs are perfect examples that for a fact we know have composite leads (as the producers admitted to during testimony). So rather than this chemistry, physics, give me program names etc, just listening to them would have been a lot more easier.
Click to expand...


I did not write "who cares about Paula Abdul". Please read again what I wrote. I said that Paula Abdul whatever she chose to do with her lead vocals she did it with her approval and while being alive. I also added that the problem with the Cascio tracks is that Michael is not alive to give his version of the facts. This means that your argument is based upon assumptions that the Cascio vocals are stacked and that you compare assumption (Cascio vocals) to facts (Paula Abdul's vocals).

Also, I did listen to the songs you posted. All I can say so far is that, although I know teh songs, I don't know Paula Abdul's voice as well as Michael Jackson's, so I don't feel qualified to say whether I hear her voice or someone else's. This is why I chose to compare MJ's previously released songs to the Cascio songs.

Regarding chemistry and physics, I only wrote it as an example of how I see things. Voices are two independent physical entities that cannot interact chemically, but physically.

As I said in lmy post, I am not a sound engineer, so I cannot provide you the name of the sofwares or techniques that are used, I can only give a scientific approach of the matter within the limits of my knowledge.

Now regarding Michael Jackson's examples of layering/stacking several vocals that you asked me, I think that in WBSS you can hear the stacked vocals in the begining of the song. Also I have impression to hear the same kind of effect in the song "WHY" with 3T. Those are the two songs that immediately pop up in my mind. There are probably other songs, but I'd have to re-listen and to pay attention to them.

For example the line "wish I could tell you what I saw..." from 0:36 to 0:46.

[youtube]fOwsfKZunvA[/youtube]

All MJ's parts:

[youtube]JgolYfq4xvI[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
Interesting read:

http://www.sonyclassics.com/farinelli/about/fmusic.html

THE UNPRECEDENTED USE OF
TWO SINGERS
TO CREATE ONE VOICE

Le projet Farinelli

[/center]The recreation of the voice of Farinelli, with its superhuman quality was unquestionably the greatest challenge faced by Gerard Corbiau when deciding to make FARINELLI.

Corbiau's first problem was the lack of recorded proof of what Castrati sounded like since all that exists is a recording by the last castratro, Alessandro Moreschi, dating from 1902 and some amateur recordings. Thus the only real way to research Farinelli's voice was to read written accounts about his performances.

The second problem was how to recreate Farinelli's voice. The first solution suggested by the musical team was to create a synthesized voice. The idea, however, was abandoned as it became obvious that the most powerful computers and fabulous synthesizers could not reproduce the unique richness, sensitivity and emotion of the human voice.

Since no single living person has the vocal range of a castrato (three and a half octaves), the musical team decided to try and work with two voices, a counter-tenor and a soprano, with the objective of digitally fusing them so they would sound like a single voice. So they began their search for two singers who had the quality they were looking for and who would be prepared to take part in this experiment.

Marc David, a musical consultant on the film, found the two singers: counter- tenor Derek Lee Ragin and soprano Ewa Mallas Godlewska. The sound-track was recorded over a period of many months during 1993 and 1994 in Switzerland under the guidance of Christophe Rousset. To create an appropriate acoustical sound, a concert hall was used for the recording, and the singers were backed by musicians to create a warmer, more sensual sound.

Then came the complicated job of editing the material. Sound engineer, Jean- Claude Gaberel, digitally fused the two voices. The process was lengthy and complicated, at times the music was edited note by note. This first stage of the editing process took ten months and involved three thousand edits.

Then came the work of the technical team from IRCAM whose objective was to homogenize the tone quality of the two singers so the voice of Farinelli was 'clean.' The vocal soundtrack of each singer was "photographed" and the constituent frequencies of the timbre of each voice was identified and analyzed vowel by vowel in order to establish a data base of information. Once this huge undertaking was over, the voices could be digitally fused to perfection.

This process is a type of "morphing"* a technique hitherto used to treat visual images so one seems to fuse into another through the gradual* modification of form, texture and contour.

The voice of counter-tenor, Derek Lee Ragin was treated first and then the voice of soprano, Ewa Mallas Godlewska was modified to approach that of the counter-tenor, using a computer program created specifically for this project.

[youtube]NWMOmBohlTE[/youtube]


IMO, this is way out of Eddie's league and technical capacities in his amateur studio. Especially if he had to do it with 12 full songs.

*Personal note: as we can see, the digital merging of voices is actually a morphing, i.e. gradual change of the voice note by note and not really a hybrid voice per se.
 
Last edited:
Lots of interesting posts over the weekend it seems!

ivy said:
perhaps for SoCav - http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/doubletracking.htm How about using pitch modulation to create a dub track?

and what is the flanger effect people mentioning that can happen during double tracking?
Click to expand...
Looks interesting, I'll read the page properly tomorrow.

As far as the flanger effect goes, I am not sure but guess this just refers to what happens when you mix the same sound twice (as is the case when you want to create an artificial double track) within a very short time interval. Whenever you do this with any kind of sound, it creates a particular kind of sound-effect. Flanging is a specific effect/technique that makes use of this. This effect is created by constantly varying the very short delay between the two sounds, resulting in a sort of swooping (I really do not know how to describe it) sound. Let me see if I can find an example.

Edit: This guy uses a flanger effect on his drums. You can hear the effect sort of come and go like a wave - this is done by varying the delay between the two sounds.
 
I accidently clicked this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjyM7yFPLMQ&list=UUxjEudzm6_9Eehb96dUVGhw&index=2&feature=plcp Sorry, I still don’t know how to insert) which is part of a very interesting series the other day, and I noticed something. I heard Michael saying, “I can’t wait to do THREA(te)NED.” He seemed to omit “t” in this interview, and didn’t pronounce the same way in song “threaTened”.

I’m not an expert on pronunciation. Anybody identified it as I mentioned above?
 
Paw;3727878 said:
I accidently clicked this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjyM7yFPLMQ&list=UUxjEudzm6_9Eehb96dUVGhw&index=2&feature=plcp Sorry, I still don’t know how to insert) which is part of a very interesting series the other day, and I noticed something. I heard Michael saying, “I can’t wait to do THREA(te)NED.” He seemed to omit “t” in this interview, and didn’t pronounce the same way in song “threaTened”.

I’m not an expert on pronunciation. Anybody identified it as I mentioned above?
Click to expand...

Interesting find. Yes indeed, it souds as if MJ omitted "t" in "threatened" in the interview. Also a little bit further down he seems to omit it when he says "that one".

Here are my two cents:

the phonetical transcription of the verb THREATEN is /ˈθretn/ So the phonetics suggests the distinct pronunciation of the sound "t" and "n". However, in Michael Jackson's interview he uses the past participle THREATENED, in other words the phonetical transcription should be something like /ˈθretnd/. We'll notice that the end of the word contains three distinct consonants which could be problematic to pronounce when speaking naturally. It is not unusual for the human being to cut or blend some sounds in order to make it easier to pronounce. What Michael Jackson did in that interview, he simply blended "t" and "n" into one nasal sound "n" making it easier for his mouth to pronounce the extra consonant "d" coming right after and resulting in giving impression that he omitted the sound "t" /ˈθre(t)nd/. This has nothing to do with a specific dialect.

Regarding "that one". If we take those two words separately normally they should sound something like /ðat wʌn/ but MJ seems to have omitted the "t" /ða wʌn/. However when listening to it several times, actually I hear a very small "r" between /ða/ and /wʌn/ resulting in something like/ða(r)wʌn/ which, again, has nothing to do with a specific dialect, but is simply quite common when speaking quickly.

Another example is the phrase "I don't know", normally it should sound /ʌɪ dəʊnt nəʊ/ but in reality many people say it /ʌ rən nə/ and to illustrate that quick pronunciation people even write it "I dunno". Observe the double "n" in that spelling. It clearly indicates that the sound "t" from "don't" has tendency to be assimilated in the sound "n", hence the spelling with double "n" replacing the "t" as in "threatened" -> "thrennd".

In the song, however, I hear MJ pronouncing the "t" as it seems that the note of the song dictates to make a very short stop at "t":
/θre - tənd - bʌɪ - mi/

What is more unusual when it comes to omitting the consonants, like "t", is when they are omitted without any apparent reason, for example when the consonant is between two vowels like "waiting". In this latter example there is no reason to omit it. This indicates that if the speaker omits it, he or she does not omit it in order to make it easier to pronounce the word, but simply that it is a common practice to do it within a particular region (= dialect). Another example is a phrase like "a bottle of water". A British from London would omit all the "t"s and would say something like "a bo' o' wa'" /ə bo'ə ə' wo'ə/.

Interesting find Paw, but it would be more intriguing if we could find MJ omitting "t" between vowels like in the word "waiting".

Edited to add:

when you listen further on at around 16:04, Michael Jackson says "acquited" and "vindicated". In both examples the "t" is between vowels and in both examples Michael clearly does pronounce it.

Edited to add 2:

What I find confusing though is that Jason Malachi in his songs does omit "t" and for some reason in this song he pronounces "t" in the word "waiting" at 1:02:

[youtube]EBko17LLIb8[/youtube]
 
Last edited:
Cascio vocalist?

[youtube]YwwjL9T3dHU[/youtube]

[youtube]RAwASjN5ZTM[/youtube]
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
Cascio vocalist?
Click to expand...

Million dollar question.

James Porte doesn't sing in a whining manner (listen to Exotic Dancer), so it's not his voice that comes shining through on the tracks.

Jason on the other hand....

When you talk about merging vocals and one vocal is more in the background than the other, then how can that whining way of singing can be explained? You all hear it in Keep your head up, don't you? Or Soldier Boy..or name any other Cascio song. Only explanation is that the vocalist has that certain trademark.

Btw: sorry for all the blanco posts above..:blush:
 
Last edited:
More Jason stuff will leak anytime soon now, and we'll find even more similarities.

I bet his song "Fame and Fortune" will be very similar to Soldier Boy...
 
Those two new clips sound identical to the Cascio songs.

Interesting how if those had the 'Cascio' stamp on them and were claimed to be Michael's vocals, the 'believers' would probably think those are Michael.
 
The 2nd clip he's veering further away from his MJ aping, but I hope he releases it and gets sued for sampling Jam and Why You Wanna Trip On Me.
.
 
Aniram said:
Those two new clips sound identical to the Cascio songs.
Click to expand...
I don't know the first one, but the second one has been around for years. There is a clip of him doing a dance routine to it.


In any case, I agree that both sound identical to the Cascio singer.
 
^ Difference is, it's much higher quality.

There are two more that leaked recently of Jason (including the higher quality of Stop Breakin My Heart):

[youtube]tRY75C6UFNs[/youtube] NOTICE from 1.10 how similar everything in it sounds like Water, even the "can't live without you, can't live without you".

I can't find any streams for the other song. Sounds similar to SBMY.
 
WildStyle;3727318 said:
Now, all of these vocals were supposedly recorded in Eddie's home studio in 2007. What jumps out at me about the 2 is that the WBSS vocals do not have the clarity of Monster. I would describe them as more muffled, and just not as in your face. Monster sounds more hi-fidelity, while WBSS sounds a tad more lo-fi. If I had to guess, I'd say the 2 vocals went through 2 different vocal chains, and I wouldn't be surprised if 2 different microphones were used.
Click to expand...

Do you think it might mean that, like some people have said, the WBSS 2008 MJ vocals are actually from an older source, like an old demo from the eighties?

Regarding the bridge on For All Time (please note I'm only talking about the BRIDGE here : I know that the rest of the vocals on FAT are from much earlier sessions) : don’t you think it’s strange that, artistically, either MJ decided NOT to sing the bridge himself, or if he did, that he chose to mix his vocals very low, to the point where we can barely hear him among the other voices? Couldn’t that be an indication that MJ felt that his vocals with the Cascios weren’t up to the usual standards?
 
Paw;3727878 said:
I accidently clicked this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjyM7yFPLMQ&list=UUxjEudzm6_9Eehb96dUVGhw&index=2&feature=plcp Sorry, I still don’t know how to insert) which is part of a very interesting series the other day, and I noticed something. I heard Michael saying, “I can’t wait to do THREA(te)NED.” He seemed to omit “t” in this interview, and didn’t pronounce the same way in song “threaTened”.

I’m not an expert on pronunciation. Anybody identified it as I mentioned above?
Click to expand...

At the risk of taking heat for bringing up this "inconvenient" fact, how one pronounces words is also influenced by medication, lack of sleep, alcohol consumption, etc. There's also MJ's ever changing "nasal situation", which I don't have to draw a picture about. Who knows if on some of those Cascio songs, he didn't have on his nose one of those tapes that he used to breath more easily?
 
^ Meh, the fans are just gathering proof. It's not helping his career at all. The clips sound so identical to the Cascio songs it's just creepy.
 
I think Michael died before he got to record the horrible Cascio songs, or never wanted to. Jason sang with James Porte(and backup) over already sculpted instrumentals that were later remixed for the album along with fine-tuning Malachi's impersonation and adding MJ copy-pasting vocals. That is the best I can conclude from what my ears hear.

You see, there is a huge distinction between these two voices. Michael's voice was a gift, supernatural really. When you watch old tapes of him as a child, from such a young age he had a voice more powerful than many professional star vocalists of the time. Powerful enough to become number one.

Malachi cannot and never will ever not gonna happen possibly ever rise to number one, his voice is a clear distinction from Michael's. There is a different energy, aura, technique, accent, approach, soul, etc. that really.. to me and to many others here it seems, is quite simple to pick out.

Malachi can never reach that peak, he can never get the smoothness to his vocals. Later in Michael's life, his voice got smoother, cleaner and more full. The Cascio songs don't demonstrate that one bit. There's something extremely wrong with them! It's obvious!

Can't believe we're nearing 2000 pages in this thread, too. I think more of the Michael Jackson community should be in outrage about this.

It is hard for me sometimes, though, to try to spread the word to friends and family and others without, I don't know how to word it exactly. I made this point before, it's just it seems they faked these vocals at such a time of economic and worldwide crisis, everyone's attention is the other way. When you bring it up to people, honestly, who is really going to care? We have economic crisis, employment crisis, people are rioting, governments are being overthrown.

"Hey, someone faked a few Michael Jackson songs on his album." "THE WORLD IS ENDING! DON'T YOU SEE IT ALL COLLAPSING AROUND YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? AHHHHHHHHH!!!" "Uh, yeah, spread the word."
 
kreen said:
lol at you guys OBSESSING over JM, and following every "leak" from this nobody... The irony is incredible, in that you hate him, yet follow is career with more trepidation than any of his fans, if he has any.
Click to expand...

The reason I "follow" his leaks is to get more information on how he sings, more similarities to the Cascio songs, etc. The more stuff that gets out there, the better.

I have listened to all of Jason's songs for a while in order to know his voice truly. If I don't know his voice very well, how could I be 100% sure it's him on the songs?

Try listening to the clip I posted instead. What do you hear? 2 different voices with 2 different vibratos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top