Latest on MJJC

Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics related)

Status
Not open for further replies.

BUMPER SNIPPET

Guests
Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics related)

After all the fuss we've had regarding the Cascio tracks, there is clearly a problem that risks to go on and on for awhile.

We unfortunately cannot provide fatcs or proofs, however there are some facts that we could discuss here and share our opinions.

This thread is about linguistcal point of view of Michael's accent, voice timbre, intonation, pronunciation, husk, etc.

If there are linguists, language(s) teachers, translators, interpreters, logopedists, your opinion would be extremely valuable.


Here is what I have to say regarding this subject:

As much as I would like to be unbiased and objective, according to me as a linguist, translator, interpreter and languages teacher, the voice that I hear on the Cascio tracks does not pronounce phonemes (sounds) the way Michael did.

One of those phonemes is and [sh]. The shock produced by the tongue against the teeth does not sound Michael's to my ears.

As far as the intonation is concerned, the most striking point is the way the singer sang the line "...stalking me". Never ever have I heard Michael pronounce such a word in such an arrhythmic way.

As far as the husk in fast songs is concerned, they sound to be choked while Michael's husk sounds fluent. It is as if the singer on the Cascio tracks tried to force himself in order to obtain the husk in his voice giving impression that he's choked because of the effort. As opposite to that husk we can clearly hear Michael's husk for example on Earth Song when he sings "what about us" part. His voice is not choked, but streaming as flawlessly as a river.

Finally, the singer's on the Cascio songs sounds to have naturally a lower voice than Michael's. Hence, when the singers on the Cascio tracks sings, it gives impression that he forces himself to sing higher than his natural tone (eventually we hear the choke effect). On the other hand, Michael when he sings on the same height, he doesn't sound as if he's forcing himself to do it (hence no choke effect).

Your opinion on the subject would contriubute immensly. For example, it would be interesting to have exclusively American English speaking people's opinion on the difference of accents between the singer on the Cascio songs and other Michael Jackson's songs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

I'm an interpreter and translator myself (and used to sing) and I nearly laughed myself silly when native speakers of American English were throwing hissy fits over the 02 press conference. Months of 'that's not him.'

Boatloads of fans were wondering about his voice and it really is nothing unusual for a 50 year old male to sound significantly different compared to their own self at 20. It is also very normal to lose upper range when you're no longer actively involved in daily exercise- you'll still have the basic range, but you'll sound different. Hence the sound of 'effort'. These songs were supposedly recorded in a basement setting- not even his own home recording surroundings, so of course that'll sound a lot different than any demo on the Ultimate Collection. You can hear all kinds of snorts and other sounds that no sound engineer would tolerate in any kind of studio..

One of those phonemes is and [sh]. The shock produced by the tongue against the teeth does not sound Michael's to my ears.
Click to expand...


All it sometimes takes is just one visit to the dentist for something like that. With Michael you'll notice huge differences.
Compare his 1993 interview with Oprah to his home movie narrative and the 60 Minutes interview- compare that with interviews in the 80ies. He's a chameleon.

Compare what he says throughout TII to the Press Conference. "someone's fist is shoved into your ear, nothing, nothing, I wanna turn first and when he get's my cue'- that sounds extremely different than his 'nothing to be nervous about, blessings to all' speech. The way he was pronouncing 's' through certain parts of TII reminded me of someone who had major dental work done and is getting used to newly polished surfaces in his mouth.
Add nerves, medical treatment, rough night with 3 children and you'll sound like a different person entirely. Heck, you can even hear when he had a cosmetic treatments because even that affected his speech greatly- it's audible.

I used to do voiceovesr for a while in different settings that all had different goals sound wise. (artsy, neutral, dramatic etc)- and most often skilled people literally can turn into another person. I often admired certain folks for that talent.
One of my friends was a radio announcer that on air sounded like your typical male announcer of this era- while in private he is yet again a completely different person- he can turn it on and off at the switch of some internal button.

Having said that, without knowing all the settings and the entire work that went into producing these songs- judging that is like trying to diagnose someone from afar. It becomes speculative.

If people are convinced these songs are 'fake', then they will certainly find enough ways to prove that point to themselves- while those that are not convinced either way won't be convinced.

So no, being an interpreter and translator (and musician) does not automatically put me on the 'they are 100% fake' side of this debate.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

Pace said:
I'm an interpreter and translator myself (and used to sing) and I nearly laughed myself silly when native speakers of American English were throwing hissy fits over the 02 press conference. Months of 'that's not him.'

Boatloads of fans were wondering about his voice and it really is nothing unusual for a 50 year old male to sound significantly different compared to their own self at 20. It is also very normal to lose upper range when you're no longer actively involved in daily exercise- you'll still have the basic range, but you'll sound different. Hence the sound of 'effort'. These songs were supposedly recorded in a basement setting- not even his own home recording surroundings, so of course that'll sound a lot different than any demo on the Ultimate Collection. You can hear all kinds of snorts and other sounds that no sound engineer would tolerate in any kind of studio..

I used to do voiceover for a while in different settings that all had different goals sound wise. (artsy, neutral, dramatic etc)- and most often skilled people literally can turn into another person. I often admired certain folks for that talent.
One of my friends was a radio announcer that on air sounded like your typical male announcer of this era- while in private he is yet again a completely different person- he can turn it on and off at the switch of some internal button.

Having said that, without knowing all the settings and the entire work that went into producing these songs- judging that is like trying to diagnose someone from afar. It becomes speculative.

If people are convinced these songs are 'fake', then they will certainly find enough ways to prove that point to themselves- while those that are not convinced either way won't be convinced.

So no, being an interpreter and translator (and musician) does not automatically put me on the 'they are 100% fake' side of this debate.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your time and valuable opinion.

I sincerely thought that language experts could find a common ground to try to solve the whole fuss surrounding the Cascio tracks.

As I can see from your post, neither are you claiming that it is 100% Michael nor another singer as far as matured voice is concerned.

Ok, let's just put that aspect of Michael's voice aside and imagine that Michael's timbre is affected by the studio in the basement and all other details.

-How about the accent? Is it Michael's. I honestly can't tell.

-How about the pronunciation and intonation? I clearly hear someone else's pronunciation at times.

-How about the husk? I clearly hear someone else's husk. Lack of natural husk, lack of power lack of breath.

-How about the last song we heard "STAY"? The voice timbre is clearly other than Michael's. I mean, the timbre is closer to the Jason Malachi's timbre than to Michael's. And as some have pointed it out, the matured voice would be heard on all the tracks, yet when we listen to some Cascio tracks we don't hear necessarily a matured voice, but rather a voice of a younger man.
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

p.s. The dentist part is maybe far fetched, isn't it? I mean, in order to have huge differences while pronouncing & [sh] you need to have a huge difference of the length between the tip of the tongue and the teeth.
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
p.s. The dentist part is maybe far fetched, isn't it? I mean, in order to have huge differences while pronouncing & [sh] you need to have a huge difference of the length between the tip of the tongue and the teeth.
Click to expand...


Actually, all it takes is a chip in your front teeth- you get used to it very quickly. Getting the chip fixed results in another change of s yet again. Usually that's quick though.

I actually don't think the dental part is that far fetched because he obviously was receiving a lot of different medical treatments leading up to the tour.

I just noticed a huge difference in his speech throughout certain parts of TII.

But you are of course correct in calling my thoughts speculative, they are. All we can do is speculate.
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

Pace said:
Actually, all it takes is a chip in your front teeth- you get used to it very quickly. Getting the chip fixed results in another change of s yet again. Usually that's quick though.

I actually don't think the dental part is that far fetched because he obviously was receiving a lot of different medical treatments leading up to the tour.

I just noticed a huge difference in his speech throughout certain parts of TII.

But you are of course correct in calling my thoughts speculative, they are. All we can do is speculate.
Click to expand...

I am not saying your opinion is speculative. You have a good reason to believe what you hear. The same goes for myself, in the very beginning I said I am biased, even though I wished I wasn't.

For example what makes me feel unconfortable with those songs is that the pronunciation of , [sh] do not match with the pronunciation from the same period. The same goes with the arrhythmic intonation of "stalking me" in the song "Monster".


p.s. I don't know if you have heard these, but please (despite the website name) listen to the audio comparisons on this site and tell me if you hear the same I do, i.e. the same voice:

http://fakemichael.com/
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

BUMPER SNIPPET said:
...

I sincerely thought that language experts could find a common ground to try to solve the whole fuss surrounding the Cascio tracks.

As I can see from your post, neither are you claiming that it is 100% Michael nor another singer as far as matured voice is concerned.
...
Click to expand...
:D:D, no that's the funny part, we're not all thinking alike because we come from different backgrounds, even in our knowledge of English. For example, I grew up with Russian/Ukrainian and German as my mother tongues, while English is almost taking over in my ability to 'feel' the language. I lived in the US for nearly 10 years and I can slip into a Boston or Maine accent at this point.


It explains the rest subjectivity that will always remain, even among linguists.

-How about the accent? Is it Michael's. I honestly can't tell.
Click to expand...
For example, when I get tired, I will inadvertently sound more German- or even slip into a New England accent because I spent 10 years there. He traveled all over the world and even had something I would lovingly call 'Jacksone', he's got his own language. :D (ironing cord and clifts, anyone??) He very much feels his way even through his own mother tongue- the way he felt his dance moves as emotions, becoming 'the emotion of what that sound is.' I feel that to a large degree he instinctively even spoke the way he would feel music.

Again, between early 80ies interviews, the early 90ies, the late 90ies and Bashi* in the early 2000s- his speech was something he could turn on and off as he felt. Sometimes I even thought to myself that you could tell which interviews mattered to him- and where he was just getting through them.

...
-How about the last song we heard "STAY"? The voice timbre is clearly other than Michael's. I mean, the timbre is closer to the Jason Malachi's timbre than to Michael's. And as some have pointed it out, the matured voice would be heard on all the tracks, yet when we listen to some Cascio tracks we don't hear necessarily a matured voice, but rather a voice of a younger man.
Click to expand...

If someone kindly PMed me, I'd be happy to listen. I only kept up with 'Slave to the Rhythm' leaks and one tine bit of 'carry on'- so I think I am way out of the loop here. Gotta defer judgement!
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

I completely understand what you mean. I also speak several languages and have several mother tongues. And I experience the same thing. When I am tired I mix all structures and accents.

Having said that, Slavic speakers hear the broadest range of frequencies thanks to the fact that Slavic languages cover the broadest range of frequencies. Slavic speakers can clearly hear sounds and easily imitate/assimilate accents of other languages.

That is your advantage, so is mine, because apparently we both are Slavic speakers.
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

Thank you guys for the PMs, I'll listen when I'm home, thank you so much!My Blackberry is really not conducive to that.

P.S: Did you guys notice that the rehearsal version of 'Black or White' sounded vastly differently in it's use of register/head voice/falsetto than the studio version? 'And a miracle has happened tonight'?
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

Well, I suppose that everyone has heard Michael live, when rehearsing, singing demos, recording for studio sessions, singing spontaneously in the nature (watch "Unauthorized interview" from the 80s), yet there has never ever been any doubt.

Since we heard Cascio tracks the big fuss started.
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

You got a good point:yes:
 
Re: Michael's voice-accent-intonation-pronunciation-timbre-husk-(Mike's phonetics & linguistics rela

Michael had a special feature while saying the words like "You", "need you", "truth", the letter "t" at the end of a word (like in "it"... He softens these consonants in his own typical way. The whole family speaks similarly, I think they took it after Joe or Katherine. I didn't notice anything like that in these songs....
This person's voice also lacks this "nosey" feature (the "stuffed nose effect"). The pronunciation of some words is different than we were used to ("Monstah" not Monster - sounds like British pronunciation to me)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top