Monster - The Great Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)

[Stranger]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

My opinion:

KYHU IS Michael, but the vocals have been messed with/autotuned. You can hear it in the exaggerated vibrato after each line. But I hear Michael on this.

BN is a mixture of Michael and other vocals. The bridge sounds like him the most.

Monster- I'm sorry but I just cannot believe this is Michael singing. It sounds so fake its unreal. I hear an imposter. Especially once the song finishes and the next thing you hear is "I am your joy/Your best of joy"... the purity and clarity of his voice is so strikingly different to Monster.

 

[MJ_Jordan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I believe it Michael, but i do think his vocals have been fiddled with. This doesn't stop me liking the song though. I think its a great track that could do well if released as a 2nd single. I don't want it to be though, i would like to see Hollywood Tonight or Behind The Mask released.

 

[Garden]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

My opinion:

KYHU IS Michael, but the vocals have been messed with/autotuned. You can hear it in the exaggerated vibrato after each line. But I hear Michael on this.

BN is a mixture of Michael and other vocals. The bridge sounds like him the most.

Monster- I'm sorry but I just cannot believe this is Michael singing. It sounds so fake its unreal. I hear an imposter. Especially once the song finishes and the next thing you hear is "I am your joy/Your best of joy"... the purity and clarity of his voice is so strikingly different to Monster.

I could agree, except your last line, some comparisions are too funny, imagine that you compare the voice in Privacy to the voice in Human Nature?

But except this I could agree with most of your post, I would not go as far as to say I hear an imposter, but I agree it could be.

Peace.

 

[love is magical]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

O, and how he sounded on This is it, in don't know about that. But there is a difference. Listen to the performance from MJ in 2006 ('heal the world') he really really sounds different.... I found that even weird ... maybe there is a difference when he practiced his voice when he didn't sang for a long time? You have to admit that he sings different...
And what about all i need? It's not casio, but alot of people think it's fake! Hollywood tonight and best of joy? how come people think they are fake too?

I don't understand why the 2006 WMA is brought up all the time. To me, that's an appearance, not a performance. Michael was not intended to sing We Are The World. It's clear to me he's not rehearsed. He's not 100% himself.

Of course his voice sounds different in different circumstances. He actually sounded pretty bad in the Clinton Inauguration Concert in 1993. The We Are The World Performance was lousy. Michael sang out of tune. He missed a line. Is it because of the cold weather? Bad sound? Malfunctioned microphone? Lack of rehearsal? Sore throat? I don't know.

Now, back to the Cascio tracks. Do you think Michael would have recorded in a studio without at least warming up his voice? Do you think Michael would have continued recording when he felt his voice is not ready? I understand he's recording demos. But still, as a professional singer who was very serious about his gifts, it's unlikely he would stress his voice when he's not ready. We all have heard Michael's demos before. All his demos sound great. Teddy Riley is right on this. Michael Jackson's worst day in the studio is still better than many artists good days. Yet, the vocal quality on the Cascio tracks is mediocre.

Also, will.i.am said Michael would warm up his voice for hours before each recording session. This is how serious Michael was.

 

[MJJuniorSinceMW]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I am wishing ALL of You a very happy New Year.

To Gaz, the Staff, mods & ALL (thinking of my discussion "partners" samhabib & bumper snippet) the members, a happy, successfull & HEALTHY new Year.

We're all fans of the greatest entertainer, singer & for most - Person -, that ever graced the planet.
That's all what really counts...

I love You more, Michael! The very best, to YOU, wherever You are!

 

[Pamonha]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

My opinion:

KYHU IS Michael, but the vocals have been messed with/autotuned. You can hear it in the exaggerated vibrato after each line. But I hear Michael on this.

BN is a mixture of Michael and other vocals. The bridge sounds like him the most.

Monster- I'm sorry but I just cannot believe this is Michael singing. It sounds so fake its unreal. I hear an imposter. Especially once the song finishes and the next thing you hear is "I am your joy/Your best of joy"... the purity and clarity of his voice is so strikingly different to Monster.

That's what I think too!

And, aside from all the controversy about who's singing what, I think that Keep Your Head Up is the only 'Cascio' song passable (I kinda like it, actually), Breaking News is weak and cliche, but Monster... it's so mediocre by itself, and then they thought "how can we sc*** even more this song?" then they hired 50 cent to sing this 'rap' or whatever. Really, they could have done this song without him, it'd be a lot better (or less worse)!

Of course that's just my opinion.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

O, and how he sounded on This is it, in don't know about that. But there is a difference. Listen to the performance from MJ in 2006 ('heal the world') he really really sounds different.... I found that even weird ... maybe there is a difference when he practiced his voice when he didn't sang for a long time? You have to admit that he sings different...

I don't understand why the 2006 WMA is brought up all the time. To me, that's an appearance, not a performance. Michael was not intended to sing We Are The World. It's clear to me he's not rehearsed. He's not 100% himself.

His vocals were all but identical to the demo he recorded in 1985. Almost completely identical. So I'd thank those that keep posting the 2006 performance as some sort of proof that he occasionally sang like Jason Malachi to think again.

[YOUTUBE]ifl_ncc7-KU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

And, again, from 7.39 onwards... that incredibly, INCOMPARABLE falsetto. So, please, don't refer to the 2006 performance. It only proves the case for those that doubt the Cascio tracks.

[YOUTUBE]A1v5z2jN8TU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

His vocals were all but identical to the demo he recorded in 1985. Almost completely identical. So I'd thank those that keep posting the 2006 performance as some sort of proof that he occasionally sang like Jason Malachi to think again.

[YOUTUBE]ifl_ncc7-KU[/YOUTUBE]

1) The 2 versions are in 2 different keys

2) earlier version was in a controlled studio setting

later version was live, and with the roar or the crowd, monitor mix and general? sound mix you don't know what he was hearing at the moment. What you hear in a live performance is what you adjust to.

3) 20 years had passed

4) A more fair comparison would be to hear a studio version done 20 years later.

They're not identical, in the studio demo there's still a consistency with the falsetto. During the WMA performance, the higher the note, the more he strained to sing it. You can hear the difference in both songs, the first is "There's a choice we're making..." and again when he says "We're saving our own lives".

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

They're not identical, in the studio demo there's still a consistency with the falsetto. During the WMA performance, the higher the note, the more he strained to sing it. You can hear the difference in both songs, the first is "There's a choice we're making..." and again when he says "We're saving our own lives".

They're in two different keys because the demo is the earlier part of the song. The key changes when the chorus kicks in at the end and that's what he's singing in 2006 - the choir part.

There's absolutely ZERO strain on his voice. At no stage does he strain to hit that high note. The WATW studio footage is a more accurate comparison as he's singing in the same key from about 7.39 onwards. It's CLEARLY the same vocalist. Which can not be said of ANY of the tracks provided by the family Cascio.

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I don't understand why the 2006 WMA is brought up all the time. To me, that's an appearance, not a performance. Michael was not intended to sing We Are The World. It's clear to me he's not rehearsed. He's not 100% himself.

Of course his voice sounds different in different circumstances. He actually sounded pretty bad in the Clinton Inauguration Concert in 1993. The We Are The World Performance was lousy. Michael sang out of tune. He missed a line. Is it because of the cold weather? Bad sound? Malfunctioned microphone? Lack of rehearsal? Sore throat? I don't know.

Now, back to the Cascio tracks. Do you think Michael would have recorded in a studio without at least warming up his voice? Do you think Michael would have continued recording when he felt his voice is not ready? I understand he's recording demos. But still, as a professional singer who was very serious about his gifts, it's unlikely he would stress his voice when he's not ready. We all have heard Michael's demos before. All his demos sound great. Teddy Riley is right on this. Michael Jackson's worst day in the studio is still better than many artists good days. Yet, the vocal quality on the Cascio tracks is mediocre.

Also, will.i.am said Michael would warm up his voice for hours before each recording session. This is how serious Michael was.

what about the vocal quality on shout? when he sings "how we make this world to be."? I don't think this is a matter of controlled setting, sick, not warming up, or not being professional. Michael wanted to sound different. Him as well as his producers told us this before he died. He wanted to do something different. Obviously sounding different from Michael Jackson is not going to sound as good as sounding like Michael Jackson.

Can anybody point me to some Malcahi vocals that are good for comparing to the ad lybs on Monster? I've never heard Malachi sound like that. MJ's aggressive, raspy, growly, throat flemmy rattling voice is something I've never Malachi be able to immitate. He can only do the softer vocals as far as I have heard.

I also can't help but think that if they were going to have Malachi sing MJ songs, he would not purposely sound so different. Monster actually sounds less like MJ than most Malachi songs.

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

cause it's a shame that michael isn't appreciated anymore when his voice is different...

I do hate to see fans here giving credit for an amazing track that Michael worked hard on, to Jason Malachi.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Monster actually sounds less like MJ than most Malachi songs.

And based on this you believe it's Michael?

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I do hate to see fans here giving credit for an amazing track that Michael worked hard on, to Jason Malachi.

There's absolutely no certifiable proof that Michael worked on these tracks, let alone 'worked hard'. Absolutely ZERO proof. Just unsubstantiated claims by the sellers.

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Audio Experiment that MONSTER is sung by Michael Jackson

i've read a lot of post's regarding the authenticity of the vocals on the latest michael jackson album. in regard to the song "Monster" i know 100% the vocals are him. however that peticular track has been sped up and that his vocals have been pitched shifted up a little bit.

a friend of mine actually mixed on one of the three tracks that were given to Teddy Riley.
Being an audio engineer myself, i got some information on how that track was edited.

The original casio track was much slower, so for Teddy to make it more modern with the production he decided to speed it up (about 9 percent) and recreate the whole song from scratch, using the casio demo as a guide.

So when you speed up an acapella. the pitch will obviously change.
but with audio software like Melodyne (youtube it) you can fine tune pitch of the vocal take.
regardless of how well of a singer you are, 99% of the time Melodyne, or Autotune is used to tighten up the vocals. this HAD to be done because the whole track was sped up.

now if you try to slow down, or "Time Strech" the monster track it will NOT sound like michael no matter how hard you try because again, the key of the song will change and it just wont be the same. There is software that i've come across to slow down, and pitch down the track without changing the key.

i used "The Amazing Slowdowner" software to slow and pitch down the song.
i used the following settings and got it sounding close to Mike as possible.

Pitch: -23cents
Speed: 91.74speed

What do you guys think?

http://uploading.com/files/c33e277c/Monster+-23cents+91.74speed.mp3/

any chance we could just get a regular audio file so I don't have to put all this crap on my computer and mess it up?

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

There's absolutely no certifiable proof that Michael worked on these tracks, let alone 'worked hard'. Absolutely ZERO proof. Just unsubstantiated claims by the sellers.

according to that logic there is no proof it was him on any of the invincible songs either. whatever reasons sony would have for hiring an impersonator, wouldn't Mj have those same reasons?

we can't claim it's because of a lack of unreleased material, especially after hearing do you know where your children are as well as slave to the rythym.

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

And based on this you believe it's Michael?

based on the fact that it's on a MIchael Jackson album, it's been authenticated with voice analyzizers which is just as accurate as fingerprinting, and the fact that the ad lybs sound exactly like Michael Jackson, and how identical it sound when he says "do you like what you see?"

The rest of the songs it sounds like MJ is trying to sound different, very different, like something you would hear in a club. I think he wanted younger crowds to go "whoa that's Michael Jackson?"

Does anybody know of any possible way for a voice analyzizer to be wrong? And out of all 7 billion people on the planet, the analyzing software just so happens to mistake it for Michael Jackson?

If it was Jason Malachi, during the verses, wouldn't he try to sound like MJ?

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

according to that logic there is no proof it was him on any of the invincible songs either.

Michael Jackson claims he was the vocalist on Invincible. Therein lies the (world) of difference.

(Besides the fact that Invincible sounds like Michael Jackson).

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

based on the fact that it's on a MIchael Jackson album, it's been authenticated with voice analyzizers which is just as accurate as fingerprinting, and the fact that the ad lybs sound exactly like Michael Jackson, and how identical it sound when he says "do you like what you see?"

The 'audiologists' 'proof' is completely unsubstantiated. None of their 'findings' have been made public. COMPLETELY unsubstantiated.

The ad libs sound nothing like Michael Jackson.

If it was Jason Malachi, during the verses, wouldn't he try to sound like MJ?

So just to get this right... you're theory is that it must be Michael because the impersonator doesn't sound like Michael? Brilliant

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Michael Jackson claims he was the vocalist on Invincible. Therein lies the (world) of difference.

(Besides the fact that Invincible sounds like Michael Jackson).

but if sony had a reason to hire an impostor, wouldn't MJ have that same reason? I don't think there is an actualy reason, I'm just saying. MJ didn't need an impersonator. There is no reason for sony to put an impostor on the album.

And Invincible doesn't always sound like MJ. In you rock my world as well as 2000 watts he sounds a lot different. Yes you can tell it's him, but it still sounds different. Same goes for MOnster., You can tell it's him even though it sounds different.'

Everybody who hears it goes "yeah it's different, but it's still obviously him."

If all we had ever heard was MJ's falsetto, and all the suddent we started hearing ad lybs that would sound like a different person as well. MJ is capable of sounding like a hundred different people. why should it be different now that he is dead?

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

The 'audiologists' 'proof' is completely unsubstantiated. None of their 'findings' have been made public. COMPLETELY unsubstantiated.

The ad libs sound nothing like Michael Jackson.



So just to get this right... you're theory is that it must be Michael because the impersonator doesn't sound like Michael? Brilliant

I appreciate the discussion, but an answer to the question would be preferrable as opposed to answering my question with another question.

I coudl easily say that your theory is for the impersonator to not impersonate MJ. Is it your theory that this person who is supposed to be impersonating MJ actually impersonating somebody else? do you actually think they would hire an impostor and then tell the guy "do no sing like MJ. we want you to sound like somebody else." Okay there is no way Sony did that.

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

and they did make their findings public. to say it wasn't made public would be like saying the finds were never made public when they tested OJ's DNA. Yes they were made public. The findins were that it was OJ's DNA. And the findings were that it is MJ's voice.

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

on monster when MJ scremas "why you do it, why you do it" I have never heard Malachi or any impostor sound even close to that.

 

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

On "Monster" as on "Breaking News", and "Keep Your Head Up" the main singer is a voice impostor, but the producer DID ADD SOME REAL MICHAEL JACKSON VOCALS HERE AND THERE, so thats what confuses some people, it does not confuses me of course, but some people just cant hear so well.
So i understand the confusion and some still believing Michael is there singing , but ummm, no no, is not him

 

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I stil have some doubts on Best Of Joy, there are part that sound like the real Michael, but others, well, seems like someone else, is not there on some parts, but hey!!!, THANKS SONY FOR MAKING IT ALL WRONG ; hahaha, we know Michael hated Sony and we understand why!, F*ck sony phony as Michael called it since 2001

 

[Pentum]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

Coooomeeeee oooooooooooooooooooooon. Best Of Joy is 100000000000% pure Michael Jackson only.

Seriously, COME OOOOON!!!!!!

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

but if sony had a reason to hire an impostor, wouldn't MJ have that same reason? * I don't think there is an actualy reason, I'm just saying. *MJ didn't need an impersonator. *

Why would a functioning Michael Jackson have the same motivation to use an impersonator as a record company releasing an album of a deceased singer? In what parallel universe is that even comparable?

There is no reason for sony to put an impostor on the album. *

They have approximately 250 million reasons actually.

And Invincible doesn't always sound like MJ. *In you rock my world as well as 2000 watts he sounds a lot different.*

No he doesn't.

Same goes for MOnster., *You can tell it's him even though it sounds different.'

No. You can tell it's not him BECAUSE it sounds different.

Everybody who hears it goes "yeah it's different, but it's still obviously him."

No. They don't.

If all we had ever heard was MJ's falsetto, and all the suddent we started hearing ad lybs that would sound like a different person as well. *MJ is capable of sounding like a hundred different people. *why should it be different now that he is dead?

At no stage has Michael Jackson ever sounded unlike Michael Jackson. Until now. So you do the math.

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

I*
I coudl easily say that your theory is for the impersonator to not impersonate MJ. *Is it your theory that this person who is supposed to be impersonating MJ actually impersonating somebody else? *do you actually think they would hire an impostor and then tell the guy "do no sing like MJ. *we want you to sound like somebody else." *Okay there is no way Sony did that.

No. My theory is that the impersonator was asked to sing as close as he could to match Michael Jackson's voice. But failed. Miserably.

Your theory is that it doesn't sound like Michael Jackson hence it is Michael Jackson. That's one hell of a theory!

 

[samhabib]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

and they did make their findings public. to say it wasn't made public would be like saying the finds were never made public when they tested OJ's DNA. Yes they were made public. The findins were that it was OJ's DNA. And the findings were that it is MJ's voice.

Really? They made them public? Did I miss this?!? What percentage match did they find?

Oh... You mean... You haven't seen the results with your own two eyes... And are just taking Sony's word for it...? Oh... And you claim that is 'proof'? Right...

 

[JacksonMan]

Re: Monster - The Great Debate

it was a 100% match.