I've been a recording engineer and producer for 40 years now. I can assure you that every single thing Fil has said on this matter is 100% accurate. It is completely impossible get two different takes to match up perfectly. The waveform is the proof in the pudding. Some of you are bitter because you're feeling ripped off. As well you should - because you were ripped off. I've got a can that Taylor farted in. I'll be glad to sell it to you for $10k!
@@WithoutTroy Oh no! I have to take occasional snorts of it! I get high, and then I carry on. I don't see why I couldn't seal it, though. For a nominal fee, I'd be glad to!
Any of you folks ever see Fleetwood Mac live, ‘75-‘79 timeframe? Stevie’s voice was often shot but they played great concerts nonetheless. There are other bands/performers who had issues. I paid my money to see a concert, not listen to the CD.
@@jazzpunk Art still has plenty of science involved. There's science in music, theory, mixing, the technology you use to make the music, the instruments are perfectly measured and crafted using art heavily using science. There's science in why certain sounds are eerie vs beautiful or why certain instruments or timbres evoke certain emotional reactions... Art and science go hand in hand, it's not magic.
Anyone who has ever listened to MJ with all the backing tracks removed can really appreciate how good he was at hitting pitch and timing with his voice. I don't know of anyone who ever did it better. And yet even he can't make it "perfect". Just goes to show you, it doesn't have to be perfect to be great.
I think it goes beyond that. Command over the inevitable imperfections makes a musician great. Perfect is less expressive, less emotional, less musical. Truly great singers (or performers on any instrument) hit early/late, sharp/flat, etc. all the time and leverage that intentionally to express themselves more deeply.
As this was in the studio, do we know that MJ knew exactly wanted to sing and was doing multiple takes to choose the best one? In the studio, he could have been trying to mix things up, to see what worked best.
We have Fil to thank for opening the public's eyes to the these technologies that enhance the vocals. So we now expect recording stars and PR team backed singers will always have these. The fans should just live with the fact that their idols are giving them "the experience" in a live performance with the vocals a mere adjunct if their favorite studio recording. That is to say, a concert should not be the foundational measure of vocal prowess. It's not! One comes away from a concert performance with memories that would enhance listening to the recorded material. I don't see the point in all these pushback against what is a scientifically proven technical impossibility like Fil does here. I don't have his ear for pitch and music - to be honest I can't even catch the glitches he's hearing even when he pointed it out... But these visual wave measurements of the human voice is pretty basic!
*A SUGGESTION* (for those that still don't "get it"): Get some tracing paper. Write the SAME sentence five times and make each as EXACTLY alike as you can. Take the five sentences you've written and lay them over each other, aligning them as best you can. You will SEE that you CANNOT write the same thing EXACTLY the same as you did before. Keep that in mind, and remember -- SINGING the same thing EXACTLY the same as before is even HARDER; (in fact, it's impossible!)
You could even try playing the same note several times on an instrument, there are always going to be slight differences. Even on a piano, hitting the same key to a metronome can give you countless differences in timing and how soft you play the note. Even simplifying it to one single note still proves the point.
Or install a music/guitar tuner app on your phone and try to sing and hold a single note for 5 secs. You'll see how hard/impossible it is for your vocal cords to keep the tuner needle/pointer still instead of fluctuating all the time. It is simply not possible for someone to hit the frequencies exactly all the time, for every note, nor exactly the same in different takes.
Yes, not just the pitch, but his accuracy in timing each phrase is so locked in. And he's trying to sing the line exactly the same each time for the record.
It is that easy to explain. Fil is so calm about all of the mean and crude things said about him. I believe he is so relaxed because he is correct. He hasn't criticized the artists, just the production and/or post production using pitch correction. Sometimes, even at live events if not being mimed...Well done Fil, your kindness and professionalism shine through all of this, it is appreciated...Rock !
And, usually in videos where someone has been pitch corrected, Fil makes a point of saying that the singer is very talented, has a great voice, and doesn't need pitch correction. That the pitch correction takes the individuality and emotion away from the voice, and adds nothing positive. He always gives credit where it's due.
@@Terri_MacKayexactly. Further may I say that the sound of vocals for the past 20 years is artificial. I’ve heard this for longer than I’ve had proof of why vocals sound artificial. They sound artificial because they are. This is not like when some of us were young and adults said our music was crap. This is a quantifiable reality. Music sounds fake, because it is.
As a recording engineer, I often do multiple takes, as MJ did. Then you pick the best of those takes for the final mix. We would not have to do that if anyone could repeat the part precisely. Nice work Fil
Can there also be an element of trying to see what works best, ad libbing a bit? High note a bit earlier or a bit later, for example. Just wondering if MJ had a particular target he wanted to nail or if he was deliberately experimenting to see what he preferred.
I am trying to recall something from a book I read on Supertramp where the engineer took pieces from 40 takes I believe for one line. Crap I can’t remember the song. At the same time Rick Davies did one take on Downstream
@@stevenrix7024 I'm a musician and trying out a few different ways of doing things to see what works best is absolutely a thing, whether preparing for live performance or doing a recording. It could absolutely be a bit of both. "Oh I slightly under pitched that note, let me go ahead" vs. "Oh maybe if I lean into that note and deliberately underpitch that before rising to the real tone it will sound kinda cool."
The Michael Jackson forensic breakdown is a perfect teaching moment. Perhaps because some ears can’t detect a difference in the performances, many people won’t bother to look at the objective visual evidence that differs from their subjective auditory experience. Well explained - keep shining your light, Fil!
Do you genuinely not hear a difference between each take? Whilst subtle, there are clearly distinguishable differences in the tones and levels of attack. They're very close though, which is a mark of someone with fine control over a honed voice in its prime.
My ears heard the differences in Michal's performances... But that's beside the point. WoP is correct about the differences making a flawless overlay impossible.
Who ever doesn't get this, by now, absolutely has learning disabilities, or rather don't want to believe it and blame you. You are very patient. Great job Fil.
I don’t watch a lot of your videos but really appreciate what you do, it’s important. It’s getting bad when I’ve seen reviewers watching live performances and saying “the vocals are a bit off, it would sound better if it was auto tuned” I don’t want it to be perfect. I want to hear the emotion and even the fatigue when they’ve given it their all for 2 hours. That’s why I prefer live music. It also applies to the musicians as well. Thanks for everything you do. Keep fighting the good fight.
One day Fils head is going to explode from frustration bc of people who won't believe him. It will be a sad day. I'll miss Fil. This is why we can't have nice things.
Yes, we will fully miss Fil. Hopefully Fil knows the drill, and fulfilled filling out a will. OR... the disbelievers could, you know, just chill. Wouldn't that be a thrill?
And just to be clear for those not following, that's not a criticism of Michael Jackson. His vocal was incredibly good! That's what I want to hear on recordings today.
I just listened to a recent interview with Alex Van Halen and he mentioned this Japanese saying "wabi-sabi" in regard to how they hated making perfect recordings and wanted more imperfections in order to make it sound more human… which is very pertinent to the discussion of pitch correcting... DEFINITION "Wabi-Sabi: The Japanese Art of Finding the Beauty in Imperfections. Rather than find faults in cracks, tears and other imperfections, the Japanese concept of wabi-sabi encourages us to appreciate that nothing is truly perfect or permanent." .... I love how it says nothing is truly perfect!!! Exactly true! Stop making imperfection perfect because you have scrubbed away all the beauty of the vocal performance.
This reminds me of what I read when I was learning to play Go; the stones are a tiny bit too big to sit perfectly side by side on the grid because the Japanese prefer a bit of imperfection in how the stones lay on the board. (Yes, I know that Go originated in China.)
@ that's interesting. There really is a beauty to slight imperfections. And it makes sense that the Asian culture is into this because they do have a history of being into nature. And nature is never perfect. You'll never see a tree standing completely 90 degrees straight up out of the ground
I know the point was to highlight the subtle differences in pitch and timing with each take, but my take-away was just how close all those takes were. MJ was so good.
I’ve put this software on myself during my live streams on Twitch. It was a pain to figure out how to isolate my voice from the guitar I’m also playing but I finally got it. Some people are confused but most people get it. I’ve gotten pretty tired of people coming into my stream to tell me how great some of the singers on Twitch are but they can’t hear that autotune is clearly being used. Not everyone of course but I wanted to challenge others to do the work. Thank you for introducing this to us. This is what music desperately needs, otherwise it’s false advertisement.
I agree it is false advertising ... but it also (usually) makes the vocals less interesting to listen to. The vocals become flat and mechanical, at least to my ear. It is all around bad for music.
@@kellydavidson3379 To be honest.. you can autotune a cat. (Seen it done in a video lol) Going forward with AI and voicesets.. add autotune with pitch correction and you will not even need a vocalist... just a computer.. which can crank out potentially thousands of songs per day. Yeah.. the future of the music industry is very dark when it comes to people trying to make a living using their actual talent. Don't get me wrong.. I love AI but I am not blind to what it will wind up doing.. and I wish it were not so. I would prefer that they co-exist and not be competitors for people's ears/wallets.
So that's essentially spot-on vocals from Michael, as far as "really singing live" goes. Software can see the difference, but your ear really can't. This is what makes music come alive. What gives it soul, brightness, and life.
I saw Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers in a small venue in Bristol around 1980. I knew his songs well because I had listened to his records a lot, but his live performance was very different from the recordings I knew. Sometimes he just stopped halfway through a song to talk to the audience, sometimes he suddenly shouted out a new chord change to his band during a song and they scrambled to catch up with him! He was brilliant and constantly creative. Now, that’s a live performance! He did that show for us personally that night.
Fil, what an awesome way to get your point across by going back to an earlier video. Just my opinion, listening to Michael Jackson was a breath of fresh air to my ears as opposed to the pitch corrected and/or auto tuned songs. You clearly proved beyond any doubt that one of the greatest singers of all time wasn’t able to get the notes absolutely perfect during the recording takes, yet he still could come close and sound great. My hope is that people will realize that your analysis videos are not meant to insult, but to educate. Yet as Carl Jung said, “Thinking is difficult, that’s why people judge.” I appreciate what you do and your integrity as a musician who believes in telling the truth using objective data and leaving no stone unturned. Many thanks, Fil!
@@thekeysman6760 If you play music, write music and teach music and get paid for same....professional musician. Prove me wrong. And further more, I said professional investigation!
@@thekeysman6760 Does it make you feel like a bigger person than you actually are when you act like a pedantic asshole to people? Do you realise you come across as a sad, angry individual with nothing better to do than criticise others? Because I can assure you that's how people look at you.
@@thekeysman6760 Why do you insist on being a pedantic, unlikeable, self-aggrandising tool? Are you that insecure you have to criticise every minor error people make, even when they don't actually make one?
I think this needed to be done to show many people what even an excellent singer could achieve. If humans to exactly replicate physical motions, those who are good at shooting free throws in basketball would never miss.
Great example! The only way someone won't get that is if they really don't want to accept it because it threatens the reputation of their favorite artist.
Michael was the whole package. So talented, yet he wasn’t perfect. Don’t know how better you can explain it Fil. Must be exhausting. Thanks for explaining again!
It is not a matter of perfection. Humans are organic living beings, not machines. NO SINGER CAN DUPLICATE THE SAME SOUND TWICE. It doesn't matter how talented they are. Saying Michael wasn't perfect is like saying he was a living being, i.e. there is not such thing as perfection. I do not think you are getting the point of this demonstration.
Interesting concept here... discussing what is "perfect" in human vocal performance. By any human perception standard, he was perfect. But (thankfully) we humans are NOT robots. We are unbelievably nuanced and creative...and that's why this is such a great example to show that the only way to get a perfectly matching waveform is by replaying a recording. Digital analytical tools have their value and Fil is using them in unique ways to forensically show us how the "sausage got made".
As a singer, this is no surprise to me. No singer will ever be able to be mathematically accurate.. And that’s a good thing. Nothing is as boring as a 100% perfect singing voice. 😂
I have always said (when commenting on people's different tastes in music) that if everyone liked the same music then all music would sound the same... and that would be boring.
@@Arcessitor Watch the same movie all day every day for the rest of your life and watch nothing else. Then come back and tell me if it is boring or not. Applied to music.. pick your favorite song and put it on repeat for the rest of your life.
For anyone who says Taylor Swift can hit the lines the same because she's a better singer than Michael Jackson, I direct you to her 2009 SNL performance. That's what Taylor really sounds like without any lip syncing, auto tune, or pitch correction. Michael Jackson was at the very top of the best of the best. To say Taylor isn't in the same league doesn't even cut it. Jackson was a 1st ballot hall of fame legend, and Swift is playing T-ball.
Taylor’s voice as a little girl was low (watch that 2001 home video that’s been going around), then puberty hit and she sounded really high, then it got low again (which is what you hear when she became in her mid 20s to now). Her 2009 performance doesn’t matter because her vocal cords aren’t thin anymore (which is due to being really young).
She also did a Tiny Desk in 2019 which is one of the best ways to hear her actual singing voice. It's fine; she can sing. Just like thousands of others at open mic nights and bar bands. All the rest of her global career is an exercise in data analytics and marketing.
@bitteroldhousecat9304 - I just listened to that SNL clip (her 'Monologue Song') and was bracing myself for many cringe moments because I have Perfect Pitch, but then I actually heard _nothing_ wrong! And I'm certainly not just saying this because of being a Swiftie (which I am not 😄), but I did buy her album '1989' at the time, 10 years or so ago, and she sang really well on it, too! 🙂
It's amazing how the "naked ear" perceives notes as being identical, but the microscope of digital analysis reveals the true unique fingerprints of each performance!!! 🎉❤ Awesome job!!!
Who doubted this in the first place? There wasn’t any pitch correction’s software or hardware back in the day when MJ recorded this. I’ve perfect pitch, I am 50 years old. I’ve heard in 1985 the he didn’t nail every pitch 100% and I hear it now, but that’s how singers and music are supposed to sound.
I agree with you-awesome example! If this doesn’t get his point across, I don’t know what will. As Carl Jung said, “Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.” I think there’s some truth to this because I mean, do the nonbelievers really THINK first?
Good you did this video coming from the other side: Even when a perfectionist and intonation monster like MJ delivers five times exactly the same sounding phrase, the graphs are not the same. Doubters who think that MJ is trying to sing differently each time should watch the linked original video; it shows he is not trying to change/optimise. (By the way: What a humble, disciplined, perfect and still relaxed singer he is!) For people with audio knowledge the video could start with a 1 minute summary, playing the audio samples quickly one after the other (=> sound de facto the same) and then showing all graphs together (=> not two of them match). You could give the long explanation after that. But who am I to tell you how to structure your videos. I should rather thank you for doing this important "enlightenment" work, so: THANK YOU!
If MJ, who was renowned for being accurate, could not sing exactly in time/tune with himself, nobody can. I mean no disrespect to him when I say this. He was better at it than most and it's impressive to see how close he got over the six takes. Singers aren't machines (fortunately).
There's a couple of fallacies here - one is that just because something is unlikely, difficult, or improbable doesn't mean it's impossible. If you take the highest level singers or musicians, like a Celine Dion, or today a guitarist like Matteo Mancuso, they DO have the kind of pitch/rhythmic control that is beyond most humans, no matter how hard they train. The same goes for highest level Indian classical or jazz musicians. They really do have that almost inhuman control. Don Henley has sung his songs for decades. MJ was doing a few takes on something he probably hadn't even rehearsed before. Big difference.
I don't think you meant this, but want to point out for the group that, for all intents and purposes, this _is_ exactly in tune and in time. To the human ear and capability, that's it. The problem is that people are looking at a readout on a screen, rather than listening with their ears (and, I would suggest, somewhat eye-rollingly) their souls. They're not hearing the music, they're analysing it. Those slight differences are not imperfections so much as just differences, although you certainly might prefer one take over another. Kind of like the different versions of The Scream (an apt picture for this metaphor, given what it depicts, haha). They're all different, and maybe there are people who have preferences, but each is its own thing. There isn't a perfect version and then lesser copies, there's just several copies. Musicians' variety, even at the height of their personal precision, is not a bug, it's a feature.
This video is only meant to explain to people who don’t get it what’s the purpose of the software and why this software can eg detect when filters and pitch correction has been applied to the natural voice of a singer, or if an audio file is the copy of another or a different recording. Amazing to see people in the comments still not understanding that this is in no way a critique of MJ or any other singers, just a technical explanation on a sound engineering software.
@@AlienEntity1 Unless reproduced from a recording there will still be variance under this type of detailed analysis. REALLY. I have no stake in proving this, and the only reason I'm replying here is that from reading your comment I can see that you are not just here to troll but actually engage. So FWIW, I replied.
@@CareyDissmore Appreciate it! I'm curious to run some tests on my own playing, using a click track. I do a lot of studio work and precision can be very important. I'm not saying every musician can nail something the same way, but I know some who can. But let's face it, most people cop out and use autotune and backing tracks, it's convenient to do it.
Well done Fil. I'm not even making these videos and I feel frustrated when people I speak to doubt your work. Not sure what more you can do to get your point across.
I believe Fil has gone above and beyond to get his point across. This analysis of Michael is simple and to the point, especially for those who either fail to grasp or don’t want to understand. Today I just read this quote from Carl Jung: “Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.”
@@glamgal7106 Oh absolutely brilliant quote - love it. I think it was a few videos back Fil had made the point that we all have our favourite artists however when his analysis shows them to be, miming, auto-tuning, pitch correcting or whatever they get defensive and refuse to believe what the software is showing, I think he added that some of them go so far as to unsubscribe from his channel - some people really are the most pathetic creatures at times.
It’s been very interesting watching your process and presentation, learned a lot. To me it’s also the exact variation that makes music relatable to my soul . Great work and please keep it up. Thank you.
If anyone still doesn't get this, don't waste your time on them any more. You've dumbed it down (doing a great job of it) to where if somebody still thinks you're wrong, they probably didn't have enough sense to figure out how to turn their phone or computer on and needed assistance.
Great job Fil. I could actually hear some differences between those takes, the obvious ones, but to see it on-screen proves your idea of a vocal "fingerprint". And Michael is one of the best singers of all time!
'Fingerprint' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly because obviously sound doesn't have a fingerprint. Not quotation marks quoting Fil. 🕊️
I knew MJ was a great singer when I was a little kid. I heard many others who were not as pitch perfect and noticed the difference. He was the reference and he was a little kid at the time. So amazing!
Fil’s hair is always perfectly imperfect! 😂 As someone who was a teen in the late 70’s and early 80’s, to me Fil’s hair always looks “the way a cute guy’s hair SHOULD look”! 😂😂😂
Fil has always been truthful and uses every means to back up his analyses. I think what the problem is that if ignorance is bliss, obviously there are people who are desperate to be happy with not knowing what the truth is. They want to believe what they want to believe. And unfortunately, we can’t force them to believe what is proven right in front of them. I can understand Fil’s frustration.
Loved this video the first time around and wish more people would understand that you can't just "sing the identical thing over and over again 'by accident'" as that just doesn't happen.
@@jecinasema5190 It has nothing to do with hitting the same "frequency". It's the micro vibrations that make up that note that will vary each time. Unless you play the same tuned piano key, there will be tiny variations on the sound formation, imperceptible by ear, but they'll show up on the pitch monitoring software.
When Fil originally released this video I thought it was a great easy to understand explanation of how vocal lines work. I think it’s great he uploaded it again for all the new subscribers and viewers to see. Hopefully it will help in convincing those who don’t want to believe the truth!
I remember when Fil originally released this analysis video. It was easy to understand. Whether the doubters will understand, I can only hope so but who knows?
it's amazing to see just how good Michael was - - all the takes sound so close - - tough to do that, but yep, clearly each take, or moment of each take, is indeed unique regardless - so, no doubt about it, looking at the takes under Fil's microscope confirms that each one, even though it does sound the same, is still quite unique unto itself.
They didn't sound "the same" to me though. Did you not hear on at least two of the takes that his voice "faded" at different points? Also, if you pay close enough attention and really listen, you can in fact make out the different levels of sharpness in Jackson's voice. Which isn't to say that the tech used in this video doesn't show all that with more clarity, because OF COURSE it does, just that you don't really "need" it to do so, to hear that not every take is exactly alike. [The natural pitch in some of the takes is also very subtly different, if you really listen] Michael Jackson was of course a phenomenal singer, I mean he pretty much ruled music for all of 2 decades for a reason...but you don't need technology to prove he was really just a man. And besides which it's overtly analytical in a way that isn't really "needed" to prove a point you could just as easily prove by VOCALLY analysing a voice. [Which I honestly believe Fil could do, he is a singer so he could say "look out for this" or "pay close attention to this bit", using this technology is a form of complacency]
@@Requiemslove thanks for the great reply Requiemslove, nicely written - I'm on the same page with you - like I get that the takes are not identical, that's why I initially described then as "close", amazingly close actually - may be one of the first times I ever listened to Michael to that level regardless that it was via YT - - and not that it matters at all, but I'm a critical listener too with a Berklee background, studio experience and a reference playback system in my home so yes, I really do understand your reply - - and yes - - I fully agree with you 100% - - as sort of a side note Requiemslove, I've come to expect to be "seeing" one thing and hearing another - - most stuff out there in video land is "fixed" to varying degrees, but the real bummer for me is how bands are capitalizing on this technology during "live" performances - I'm old enough to not want to talk about age and was weened on all the usual stuff from the middle late 60's and into the 70's only to find myself streaming blues and playing jazz records these days because they aren't nearly as processed as most of the stuff out there - on a whim I bought one of Mary Spender's CDs after seeing her on Rick Beato's channel - I didn't make it through a singe track, not a single track - the entire CD is so computerized and perfect, I mean "perfect" - that there's simply no humanization or actual "unfixed" playing to relate to, regardless that I suspect and understand that she's a very good writer. btw - kinda funny, back in the day I gave an excellent pressing of Thriller to a friend, didn't seem that important to me - not that I sit around and listen to MJ all the time but what a dope! Thanks for writing Requiemslove - catch ya later. ( :
@@skip1835 I see it more as being receptive to musical intricacies, personally. I lack any formal education musically. Tried to self teach myself guitar but I lack dexterity. [Sadly] I would say that I'm a "former" fan of MJ's. For reasons I never fully understood I was big on him when I was a kid and a teenager. But it gradually "waned" over time, which was exarcebated via the scandals, although I never could really "believe" what they'd said. With respect, we're of different times, although I suspect we probably have some musical interest in common. I reckon if you said a few of the bands you were "weened" on I'd probably recognise them. No doubt at least a couple are some "rather big" British bands, heck more institutions that EVERYONE knows about and have no doubt at least partially been influenced by. Heck, Queen, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, the Who and [of course] The Beatles, just to roll some obvious names out. [They're all in the mix, somewhere in my musical collage] Heck, I forgot the first music "thing" I ever owned. The Rolling Stones. [I had their 40 licks TAPE...] In regard to Mary Spender, because I don't want this getting overlong. I got to wonder why curiosity got the better of you? I just see "red flags" with her. The reason that I see those flags is because of one very wonderful musician called Norah Jones. Now you may or may not have heard of this 9 time grammy winner who sold 16 million albums in her first year [a record until 2011] as well as 40 million albums before she was 30, but the point is she's always kept her peace, never expresses what she really thinks on most things [except in relation to...well... music stuff] and crucially [at least as far as I can gather it] cares about her music, cares about REAL music, delights in live music and more specifically the playing of it with others, and has generally always had her focus [except for a few brief stints in movies] on it. I'd go so far as to say that if/when I have children, she's the ideal role-model I'd want a child of mine to cling to if they wanted to do music. I bring this up not to "brag" in any way about my favourite musician, but to say that she [along with others] has shown me for YEARS where the real music is. Heck, she's basically the front door to a lot of other things I discovered because of her, as well as the genesis of what I'd learned when younger. The salient point being [I know this has dragged on, sorry] is that in spite of your unfortunate experience there's FAR MORE GOOD STUFF OUT THERE than you may in fact realise. Despite the impression of mainstream commercialised music, or the implications of videos like this, and the corner cutting of many who honestly LACK TALENT, you just need to know where to look. I trusted my gut in regard to Spender, who IMO seems to care more about her opinions and some kind of over-arching agenda, than she does about music. [I could tell, by looking just at the youtube video titles she wouldn't be "for me", Mr's Jones has taught me well]
@@Requiemslove Whoa - the music stuff aside, Requiemslove, what an amazing response - - more like reading an email from a long time friend, thank you - - - there's perspective on everything (getting back to the music stuff) that I spoke of as I'm sure there is for you as well - - - ummm, the Mary Spender thing really was a simple whim and that more because Rick obviously liked her work - I had no idea of her background or even how worthy or not worthy her music is/was at the time and I bought that particular CD. I brought it up because it's an example that so explicitly highlights my issue with many modern recordings (which sort of relates to some of the stuff Fil is talking about), and that's not to say that I'm right, to each his own - but I can simply imagine her working on her stuff with a laptop using pro tools or some editing software to polish every micro second of her work - and that's very obvious when listening to her CD and the reason I never made it completely through any of the tracks. I actually had a few little thoughts of sending it back to her, not for the money, but to express that it's so over polished that there's (as I previously expressed) very little hint of "humans" playing and singing - - although I may have mislead you a bit about relegating myself to blues and jazz, I'm always on the search for decent music and if any of those discoveries happen to be well recorded, well, all the better (the Spender thing being one of those searches) - - an example of what I really like "sound & playing" wise would be the vinyl stuff from "Tone Poet" - - those recordings, in some instances actually outshine the music itself - very realistic, very little (if any) compressing - but again, that would be a side example - - - interesting you bring up Norah Jones - - - wonderful stuff, generally excellent recordings (imo) - - - which reminds me, a bass player I worked with for over a decade brought her up one day - we're both audiophiles and we were having a bit of a reunion and he asked me if I had any of her stuff (that question was in the context of us talking about hi end play back equipment) - the thing is, here we are, into jazz and later Steely Dan, he LOVES classical stuff and music along those lines and he's asking me about Norah - Requiemslove, he actually asked me if I had her box set which seemed so out of "left field" at that moment - but again, in the context of hi end playback, as much to do with the sound of her recordings as the music itself - which anyway, yeah, I do and did at the time (her box set "the Vinyl Collection") - but that little interlude has stuck with me because of the surrounding circumstances I just described, and so here you are, a couple of years later expressing your fondness for her music - - - so yes, I love her writing and presentation too - I would guess that you're getting that my tastes in music don't really have any solid lines - from Hendrix to Jones, I'm a nut case for a very wide variety even though I expressed this sort of relegation to blues and jazz. I'm the one getting wordy but my attraction to blues is that most of those recordings are not "overly" produced, they generally feature real drummers, bass players, real musicianship in general which I really appreciate regardless that quite often the structures of blues is very old school. Sometimes I just want to flip on the stereo and let someone else chose the music, thus this streaming thing that I often use - it's great, no DJ, just tune after tune from the 20's all that way to Stevie Ray and beyond - a very enjoyable escape - I knew nothing about Bernard Allison, he would be an example of a "discovery" for me while listening to this stream. Sorry I rambled, so great to make your acquaintance - happy music/listening - Skip.
@@skip1835 Ooof, yea, that's always a gamble. Of course most of the time when you lose it's not a big deal because "losing" in that parlance is a rather large catch all term for something not quite "hitting" For me in this instance I chose to dabble in "extremes" just to have some kind of framework to look at. So, for me an example of an impulse buy or a "whim" as you put it. Well, I "won" if that's the best way to put it in 2001, with actually one of the first albums I ever brought. [instead of something brought for me] I'd only been in college for a year or so and one of my favourite things really, was computers. Well, I picked up an album that I would go on to learn [ironically from computers and the still new fangled internet] was a pretty BIG deal. But I didn't know that at the time, I knew of the band, one of their members living barely 40 miles or so away, and I know I'm rambling so I'll just say it. Radiohead, OK Computer. Heck, I picked it up just cause it referenced computers. I really didn't like it the first couple of listens but soon enough it dawned on me this album was hellishly intimidating. I stuck with it. Took me about 6 attempts to really get INTO it. This is an example of something you can listen to thousands of times... and STILL find something you missed. I would go on to get most of Radioheads albums, and finding them turned me towards another great band of a similar vein, Muse.[Real big culture wars between Muse fans and Radiohead fans... back in the day] And now we come to the "why did I buy this" section. I confess I was tempted to mention Amy Winehouse's "back to black album, having brought that on a whim but one that was sort of "influenced" by the furore about her back at that time, [said time being 2006] but if I mention that I must mention... HER and I told myself I'd stop going on about my favourite thing, with this one. [So I'll set my NoJo fandom aside, for a bit] More grating than a slightly dirty sounding alleged Jazz star who was really just a lionised pop star the media was falling over, who effectively just had a "unique" sound I could honestly take or leave and was nothing like... no STOP IT, [gets a hold of oneself] well I could go 2 ways with this one. There is either the Clannad Un Diolem option which is basically Enya only without the mystery of another unique sound going off on her own but some manner of overtly artsy fartsy Irish folk group that just did NOTHING for me [And it should have done, cause I brought it cause Enya, side note, found out about her from being a huge Tolkienite... but that's another story] Or there's the Rasmus and Dead Letters. Think I'll go with this one. You know when you buy something and you "want" to like it, you tell yourself 5 listens in that it's alright, it's going to get good, your going to like it? Well, that was my experience here. Now I can forgive the Enya with her Irish folk daddies thing, on account of the huge whallop [is that a word?] of talent which is Enya, but this? I found myself resenting Rasmus's "Dead Letters album by the 10th listen. I'd learned from Radiohaad to give music a chance so, I stuck with it another 10 listens but by then I was just like "Sorry Radiohead, the lesson is wasted on on these ones..." as Rasmus played their one defining characteristic as a band INTO THE DUST. [Boy do I have buyers remorse on this one] Anyway, sorry to ramble on. Just a few more thoughts really. But yea, I get it, music has to hit you in some way. When it doesn't it truly sucks. Hey, I made it through without mentioning well you know who. Sorry MJ, NJ stole my heart, please don't haunt her from wherever you are. [She's actually kind of lovely, I think you'd like her] Do you reckon dead Kings of pop haunt folks? [Hope not]
In recording double-, triple-, or more vocal tracks singing the same part, the purpose is actually to have those small differences that fill out the sound. Even if you could miraculously be exact, then there'd be no point to it - it would just sound like one track. I believe the "Chorus" effect was designed originally to make double-tracking unnecessary - saving expensive studio time. I love recording and love the happy accidents that sometimes come out better than the original plan.
Great vid! Great to see, that even six nailed takes look so differently. Having sung multiple takes in my bedroom studio, it's amazing to see how close MJ's takes are. Mine are not 😅
I said you wanna be startin' somethin' You got to be startin' somethin' I said you wanna be startin' somethin' You got to be startin' somethin' It's too high to get over (yeah, yeah) You're too low to get under (yeah, yeah) You're stuck in the middle (yeah, yeah) And the pain is thunder (yeah, yeah)
This is an amazing representation of how someone who is so amazingly pitch-perfect having slight variations in pitch - it's impossible. There are some "live" performances or concerts that background vocals are used, where based on the length of each concert and frequency, perfect pitch can't be expected. Part of what someone is paying for is the "experience" of the show. Similarly, there are many performers who are great, but not pitch-perfect, who require more than a dozen takes in the studio to get a chorus down. But I'm really pleased how you pulled this audio of one of the greatest pop singers, in his prime, and used it as a demonstration. Love your videos!
@@precioussoulmj07 Sing, dance, and act. That's the triple-thread, or trifecta. If a person does all three very well, the sky's the limit in entertainment :)
I'm more into rock but at the time there was a 'making of' we are the world broadcast on tv with the singers in the studio, you heard Michael singing live and a dry vocal (no effects); i was impressed at how good of a singer he was.
I was impressed as well, and I'm predominantly old school Country music. He wasn't my cup of tea musically, but he's one of a rare few that actually qualifies as a legendary icon, in my opinion. Which is a hard reach for me to make such a call.
Just watched Judy Graubart (The Electric Company) and I'm LOVING THE HAIR! I came for the analysis, stayed for the hair! All joking aside, this is so important! The human voice is amazing, and we lose something valuable when we rob it of its natural variations. Thank you for keeping a measure of honesty in the industry.
'Fingerprint' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly because obviously sound doesn't have a fingerprint. Not quotation marks quoting Fil. 🕊️
@thekeysman6760 I meant "fingerprint" as a quote from Fil. since it is what he aptly said. If that's incorrect, just keep scrolling. It won't be my only mistake today!
With 2 degrees in electronics and specializing in audio/video I completely understand what he talks about and he is correct. He also doesn't really give his opinion on wether he likes it or not and never really talks down about the songs. Also, I was talking to my sisters kid and he is much younger than I. And he said that himself and his friends don't go to live concerts for the live signing. They go for the dancing and party like atmosphere of the crowd. It's a rush when hundreds of people are all yelling and cheering for the same thing. He and his friends don't care at all if the song is not live. He said it literally doesn't matter. FYI he's 45.
@thekeysman6760 one of my teachers taught wood shop and electronics and he told us that voice waveforms are like the grain in wood. You can't have two that are identical, even in the same tree. For me, taking both classes it made perfect sense. My wife says it's like an oil painting that's hand painted. They may look the same but under a microscope they can't have identical brush strokes. Only a computer can do that.
first time I heard that song, yes before auto-tune existed, it sounded like MJ voice was auto-tuned compared to all the other voices in that song. His level of voice control was just that insanely high 😂
Super example Fil! A singer with MJ's decades of professional level experience, both in & out of the studio, certainly should serve as proof of concept to doubters. With very few exceptions, that's such rarified air. Many artists can only dream of having that much, consistent work. I can only think of a handful of examples, artists with more performance time than Michael. anyway, without too much question, physics wins! Thanks again! rock on \m/
I got to see it earlier on Patreon. I never watch the link until another day. I think it took 8 hours to record We are the World, it was daylight when they went outside. Thank you Fil for the hours it took to give us this video. Great job,, Rock On
Excellent analysis, Fil...You really know your stuff and that doesn't come easily for me to say because 2 or 3 years ago I gave you a real hard time concerning your analysis of the acapella group Voctave...in fact , you did a follow up video shortly after trying to explain your previous analysis...I'm here today in front of God and everyone to sincerely apologize to you for giving you such a hard time when I was obviously so mistaken... I have now watched enough of your videos over the last couple of years to know that you indeed know what you're talking about...again, I apologize for giving you a hard time back then...keep being awesome !!!...
There will NEVER be another person who comes close to the talent of Michael Jackson. RIP! I still miss you. If human beings were able to replicate EXACTLY a physical performance, there would be no need to hold games/tournaments. Every golfer would hit the exact same tee shot EVERY time. Every pitcher would throw a strike EVERY time. Every runner would place exactly the same in every race. Clearly, even highly skilled, expertly trained, athletes/artists cannot exactly replicate even intensely practiced actions.
Michael Jackson was technically a brilliant and very accurate singer, but even he was no machine and this shows it. This is in a different universe from people using prerecorded audio files. That is not to say that Michael, were he alive today, would not be tempted to perhaps 'augment' his vocals too. He was a perfectionist after all and you can get carried away. I'm not the guy to say that people using audio files live all can't sing. I think a good deal of them are just looking for perfection, total reliability and the ability to repeat the same performance again and again without any drop in quality no matter what the outside circumstances are. Of course that misses the point of what live music is about. But it is also a reflection of today's audience expectations. I believe that audiences today are less tolerant of "brave failures" than they used to be.
While I dislike lip synch/miming, at least be honest about whether it is being used. I can see it being used for voce-preservation reasons because one can destroy one's voice if doing extreme vocals night after night. Just be honest.. and I mean honest about 'why' it is being done.. fans would likely understand. I mean.. choose one of the following: 1) 100% actual live performances every night on tour for the next 5 years.. but zero new music after that b/c voice destroyed 2) 50% live vocals/50% pre-recorded/mimed for the next 5 years... but another 10+ years of new music from the same artist. I know this is an extreme over-exaggeration in most cases... but vocalists do damage their moneymaker over time.. and this does not even account for aging.
OP, as an industry session musician for many decades, I can't help but see how you misunderstand MJ's skills. He wasn't "accurate" per se at all, as we have always been able to hear, and now see, yet he was accurately able to work with his voice. He knew when to allow deliberate flatness or sharpness. That's very different to supposed 'accuracy'.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee No, you've missed the point there. Are you a professional musician for the last 30+ years as I am as a session musician? I suggest you digest what I originally said and see that part of your thought is right but not regarding the bigger picture we can now see and have always known. MJ's deliberate flatness or sharpness _is_ the funk! 🕊️
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee A 'professional' has a paid position with their skill and it is their main income. How can you say you "play and sing professionally" unless you are what I described or are actually meaning you think your skills are 'professional', please? Which is it? My ears and hands are/were! worth more than the MU session rate! So I do know what I'm saying and what I mean. Other colleagues (professionals, by definition!) agree with me and say the same. You are on your own with your belief there. Was just trying to help you out of your misunderstanding. But nevermind. Be well. 🕊️
Thank you for sharing this.. was interesting to see 'how close' he was able to come. Was not his biggest fan but had plenty of respect for his skill. This illustrates perfectly that even one of the most skilled professionals is not able to completely replicate one vocal line even seconds later to the level at which the computer can differentiate between them. They can sound exactly the same.. but at the microscopic level at which this program operates those subtle differences that we cannot hear are plainly visible.
But they DON'T sound exactly the same. I don't need this technology to highlight what my ears can pick up on. Jackson's voice fades differently with at least 2 or 3 of the 6 takes, for one, and the sharpness is only too close to call on a couple of the takes, while on the rest you can in fact subtly make it out. His vocal pick-up [IE the timing] is "not" too perfect to differentiate one take from the next, [it almost is but not quite] and also the pitch is NOT 100% the same in each take, again, very subtle differences. Seriously, FULLY LISTEN, you don't need technology to explain to you what your ears can pick up on. It's interesting on a technical level, only. [But you don't "need" it]
@@Requiemslove I said 'they can' I did not say 'they do'. The truth is, however, that even if the DID sound exactly the same, this program would pick up the differences and visually illustrate them so that even the least intelligent among us would be able to recognize that they 'are not' the same.
@@uoabigaillevey Yes, I get that. Fil more than adequately explains the very same thing in this video. All I'm saying is that the "proving the point" is irrelevant because for I'd say most of us [believe it or not, the majority of people are not "Swifties" or enamoured of other such fakes] we already GET it. We know and understand that no singer can 100% replicate the same vocal, that every take is different, and believe it or not... we kind of "like" that about real music. Beside which, don't you think that if your favourite singer/musician "could" do the same vocal every single time, wouldn't it send them crazy? [I'm a NoJo fan, personally, pretty sure she'd DESPISE that... and you won't find many better singers than her...]
@@Requiemslove Agreed. I much prefer individual performances to be unique.. because if I wanted the same performance I would just listen to the recording. If I were still among those who pay to see live concerts I would feel cheated if the vocals were pre-recorded unless under specific circumstances... like they are impossible to be done live.. or the vocalist is literally too sick to do them.. etc. And even then, I would still prefer to be forewarned about their use.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I've been a recording engineer and producer for 40 years now. I can assure you that every single thing Fil has said on this matter is 100% accurate. It is completely impossible get two different takes to match up perfectly. The waveform is the proof in the pudding. Some of you are bitter because you're feeling ripped off. As well you should - because you were ripped off.
I've got a can that Taylor farted in. I'll be glad to sell it to you for $10k!
Lol, good one.
Is the can sealed?
Sealed with a kiss 😅@@WithoutTroy
They're just upset because they just found out that Taylor is as good at singing as she is with relationships.
@@WithoutTroy Oh no! I have to take occasional snorts of it! I get high, and then I carry on. I don't see why I couldn't seal it, though. For a nominal fee, I'd be glad to!
Small imperfections only add to the value of music! That's the richness of being human.
I love the nuances in a live performance.
Agree. Music is an art...not a science.
@@jazzpunk Well said!!
Any of you folks ever see Fleetwood Mac live, ‘75-‘79 timeframe? Stevie’s voice was often shot but they played great concerts nonetheless. There are other bands/performers who had issues. I paid my money to see a concert, not listen to the CD.
@@jazzpunk Art still has plenty of science involved. There's science in music, theory, mixing, the technology you use to make the music, the instruments are perfectly measured and crafted using art heavily using science. There's science in why certain sounds are eerie vs beautiful or why certain instruments or timbres evoke certain emotional reactions... Art and science go hand in hand, it's not magic.
Anyone who has ever listened to MJ with all the backing tracks removed can really appreciate how good he was at hitting pitch and timing with his voice. I don't know of anyone who ever did it better. And yet even he can't make it "perfect". Just goes to show you, it doesn't have to be perfect to be great.
His timing was amazing, including his dancing. Best I've ever seen.
I think it goes beyond that. Command over the inevitable imperfections makes a musician great. Perfect is less expressive, less emotional, less musical. Truly great singers (or performers on any instrument) hit early/late, sharp/flat, etc. all the time and leverage that intentionally to express themselves more deeply.
@@jretzlaffSince we are all vibrational brings, singing the same song on an up, positive day vs a down, sad day can give a different end result.
I think Jackson shows that so-called 'imperfection' is inherently human-and that's what makes it so beautiful and sublime.
As this was in the studio, do we know that MJ knew exactly wanted to sing and was doing multiple takes to choose the best one? In the studio, he could have been trying to mix things up, to see what worked best.
Auto-tune is doing to singers what air-brushing and photoshop did to the self esteem of women. Setting false expectations that no one can live up to.
And making them believe that a fake is better than the real thing.
It's not just the females but there are guys who are as equally bad.
Well said
Filters on Instagram etc, too
We have Fil to thank for opening the public's eyes to the these technologies that enhance the vocals. So we now expect recording stars and PR team backed singers will always have these. The fans should just live with the fact that their idols are giving them "the experience" in a live performance with the vocals a mere adjunct if their favorite studio recording. That is to say, a concert should not be the foundational measure of vocal prowess. It's not! One comes away from a concert performance with memories that would enhance listening to the recorded material. I don't see the point in all these pushback against what is a scientifically proven technical impossibility like Fil does here. I don't have his ear for pitch and music - to be honest I can't even catch the glitches he's hearing even when he pointed it out... But these visual wave measurements of the human voice is pretty basic!
*A SUGGESTION* (for those that still don't "get it"):
Get some tracing paper.
Write the SAME sentence five times and make each as EXACTLY alike as you can.
Take the five sentences you've written and lay them over each other, aligning them as best you can.
You will SEE that you CANNOT write the same thing EXACTLY the same as you did before. Keep that in mind, and remember -- SINGING the same thing EXACTLY the same as before is even HARDER; (in fact, it's impossible!)
You could even try playing the same note several times on an instrument, there are always going to be slight differences. Even on a piano, hitting the same key to a metronome can give you countless differences in timing and how soft you play the note. Even simplifying it to one single note still proves the point.
That's a great illustration.
Just try writing your name exactly the same 3x
Or install a music/guitar tuner app on your phone and try to sing and hold a single note for 5 secs. You'll see how hard/impossible it is for your vocal cords to keep the tuner needle/pointer still instead of fluctuating all the time. It is simply not possible for someone to hit the frequencies exactly all the time, for every note, nor exactly the same in different takes.
Further to your point, no sentence will be written the same BUT the writing is still recognisable as your writing. The analogy is perfect.😊
The fact that Jackson got that close across multiple takes is impressive.
That's why he was so big. Pure talent.
I never really liked his music but he was undeniably talented at what he did.
This was absolutely nothing like the video of Jackson massaging Macaulay Culkin's crotch.
I think MJ did those variations on purpose, he was that talented 😊
Yes, not just the pitch, but his accuracy in timing each phrase is so locked in. And he's trying to sing the line exactly the same each time for the record.
It is that easy to explain. Fil is so calm about all of the mean and crude things said about him. I believe he is so relaxed because he is correct. He hasn't criticized the artists, just the production and/or post production using pitch correction. Sometimes, even at live events if not being mimed...Well done Fil, your kindness and professionalism shine through all of this, it is appreciated...Rock !
I agree !
Well said
And, usually in videos where someone has been pitch corrected, Fil makes a point of saying that the singer is very talented, has a great voice, and doesn't need pitch correction. That the pitch correction takes the individuality and emotion away from the voice, and adds nothing positive. He always gives credit where it's due.
@@Terri_MacKayexactly. Further may I say that the sound of vocals for the past 20 years is artificial. I’ve heard this for longer than I’ve had proof of why vocals sound artificial. They sound artificial because they are. This is not like when some of us were young and adults said our music was crap. This is a quantifiable reality. Music sounds fake, because it is.
lol
Investigation complete. Expanation delivered. Great analysis. Proof displayed.
It is complete. End of story. 😂
Michael's version of "all over the place" is literally superhuman accuracy. There are very few singers in history who can do what you see MJ do here.
All over the place?
As a recording engineer, I often do multiple takes, as MJ did. Then you pick the best of those takes for the final mix. We would not have to do that if anyone could repeat the part precisely. Nice work Fil
Nice one! The video should have led with that!
Can there also be an element of trying to see what works best, ad libbing a bit? High note a bit earlier or a bit later, for example. Just wondering if MJ had a particular target he wanted to nail or if he was deliberately experimenting to see what he preferred.
I am trying to recall something from a book I read on Supertramp where the engineer took pieces from 40 takes I believe for one line. Crap I can’t remember the song. At the same time Rick Davies did one take on Downstream
@@mtebor That's a lot of takes
@@stevenrix7024 I'm a musician and trying out a few different ways of doing things to see what works best is absolutely a thing, whether preparing for live performance or doing a recording. It could absolutely be a bit of both. "Oh I slightly under pitched that note, let me go ahead" vs. "Oh maybe if I lean into that note and deliberately underpitch that before rising to the real tone it will sound kinda cool."
Great analysis. The facts don't lie. This is what makes us human. The imperfections make it art
Man, Michael was so damn good.
Some mf's be bashing his talent here in the comment section. The blasphemy
If you listen and look at Micheal's pattern it is so close and that shows how good he was and also how correct this video is.
You are so articulate and your scientific visual evidence could not make the truth more evident. Thanks, Fil!
Top man!
The Michael Jackson forensic breakdown is a perfect teaching moment. Perhaps because some ears can’t detect a difference in the performances, many people won’t bother to look at the objective visual evidence that differs from their subjective auditory experience. Well explained - keep shining your light, Fil!
Thanks for the donation!
Do you genuinely not hear a difference between each take? Whilst subtle, there are clearly distinguishable differences in the tones and levels of attack. They're very close though, which is a mark of someone with fine control over a honed voice in its prime.
@ Do I? Of course I do. My reference is to those who can’t hear the difference and so choose to deny the validity of the visual evidence.
@@HermesNinja Understood. Thanks for the clarification!👍
My ears heard the differences in Michal's performances... But that's beside the point. WoP is correct about the differences making a flawless overlay impossible.
Who ever doesn't get this, by now, absolutely has learning disabilities, or rather don't want to believe it and blame you. You are very patient. Great job Fil.
I am Autistic but I know most people are miming these days! Lol
You discredit your argument by resorting to personal insults.
Calm down dear
@Chez8922-kf6cy taylor swift lip syncs, get over it
@@Chez8922-kf6cyon what planet does that discredit an argument?
God bless you, Fil. Everyone who can think knows you're being accurate and genuine.
Yes, I desire the genuine over the accurate!
WOW just look how accurate Michael was though! 👀
This video is the proverbial sledgehammer driving home a point in every 100% spot on! Thanks Fil!
I don’t watch a lot of your videos but really appreciate what you do, it’s important. It’s getting bad when I’ve seen reviewers watching live performances and saying “the vocals are a bit off, it would sound better if it was auto tuned” I don’t want it to be perfect. I want to hear the emotion and even the fatigue when they’ve given it their all for 2 hours. That’s why I prefer live music. It also applies to the musicians as well.
Thanks for everything you do. Keep fighting the good fight.
This precisely, there a danger and risk and reality in live performance. That's surely why musicians do it.
One day Fils head is going to explode from frustration bc of people who won't believe him.
It will be a sad day. I'll miss Fil.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Yes, we will fully miss Fil.
Hopefully Fil knows the drill,
and fulfilled filling out a will.
OR... the disbelievers could, you know, just chill.
Wouldn't that be a thrill?
@@CraigCholar:
Which there is no pill
That fits the bill
@@vernonhardenStill
Save Fil. We need to protect this guy. We need to not allow his brain to mush into frustration pulp. Long live Fil.
Alas there would only be one recording so no waveform analysis. 😢
And just to be clear for those not following, that's not a criticism of Michael Jackson. His vocal was incredibly good! That's what I want to hear on recordings today.
Yes, this shows how the natural voice works without being altered by pitch correction or auto tune.
Agree with you totally, if anything it shows just how good he was to be so close.
What's sad, is that there are actually folks who can't, won't, get what you have so clearly explained.
Whats even sadder is they don't have the integrity to even care, trumps new america on both points
@@bonzology322 Remember JB was the smartest person in the room according to Harris. Wise up.
@@bonzology322 Fil is right about everything. You are just a troll. The internet has loads of you.
@@bonzology322It's Kamala's America. Not very bright, are you?
they cant get past that thier hero is not perfect.
Thank you for the facts, thank you for the truth, thank you for the work❤🙏
It is amazing how close Michael was on all of those takes. Wow! But no such thing as perfection.
I just listened to a recent interview with Alex Van Halen and he mentioned this Japanese saying "wabi-sabi" in regard to how they hated making perfect recordings and wanted more imperfections in order to make it sound more human… which is very pertinent to the discussion of pitch correcting... DEFINITION "Wabi-Sabi: The Japanese Art of Finding the Beauty in Imperfections. Rather than find faults in cracks, tears and other imperfections, the Japanese concept of wabi-sabi encourages us to appreciate that nothing is truly perfect or permanent." .... I love how it says nothing is truly perfect!!! Exactly true! Stop making imperfection perfect because you have scrubbed away all the beauty of the vocal performance.
This reminds me of what I read when I was learning to play Go; the stones are a tiny bit too big to sit perfectly side by side on the grid because the Japanese prefer a bit of imperfection in how the stones lay on the board. (Yes, I know that Go originated in China.)
@ that's interesting. There really is a beauty to slight imperfections. And it makes sense that the Asian culture is into this because they do have a history of being into nature. And nature is never perfect. You'll never see a tree standing completely 90 degrees straight up out of the ground
@@marksmorphsSince I'm a "western dude," I hate the natures. It's sooo disgusting.
I've never heard of wabi Sabi before. Thanks for the education.
@@aafjeyakubu5124 as soon as I heard him mention it, I was waiting for the latest WOP to drop because I knew everyone here would appreciate it.
I know the point was to highlight the subtle differences in pitch and timing with each take, but my take-away was just how close all those takes were. MJ was so good.
I’ve put this software on myself during my live streams on Twitch. It was a pain to figure out how to isolate my voice from the guitar I’m also playing but I finally got it. Some people are confused but most people get it. I’ve gotten pretty tired of people coming into my stream to tell me how great some of the singers on Twitch are but they can’t hear that autotune is clearly being used. Not everyone of course but I wanted to challenge others to do the work. Thank you for introducing this to us. This is what music desperately needs, otherwise it’s false advertisement.
I agree it is false advertising ... but it also (usually) makes the vocals less interesting to listen to. The vocals become flat and mechanical, at least to my ear. It is all around bad for music.
@@kellydavidson3379 To be honest.. you can autotune a cat. (Seen it done in a video lol)
Going forward with AI and voicesets.. add autotune with pitch correction and you will not even need a vocalist... just a computer.. which can crank out potentially thousands of songs per day. Yeah.. the future of the music industry is very dark when it comes to people trying to make a living using their actual talent. Don't get me wrong.. I love AI but I am not blind to what it will wind up doing.. and I wish it were not so. I would prefer that they co-exist and not be competitors for people's ears/wallets.
You explained it and showed the proof! How can anyone deny it!? Thank you, Fil, for the excellent analysis! Rock!
So that's essentially spot-on vocals from Michael, as far as "really singing live" goes. Software can see the difference, but your ear really can't. This is what makes music come alive. What gives it soul, brightness, and life.
I saw Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers in a small venue in Bristol around 1980. I knew his songs well because I had listened to his records a lot, but his live performance was very different from the recordings I knew. Sometimes he just stopped halfway through a song to talk to the audience, sometimes he suddenly shouted out a new chord change to his band during a song and they scrambled to catch up with him! He was brilliant and constantly creative. Now, that’s a live performance! He did that show for us personally that night.
Jonathan Richman is underappreciated. He was always evolving, but I love his more child-like songs the best. "I'm a Little Airplane."
Love his spontaneity
He had the radio on!
@salthead3 - I think all *I* have ever heard of his music has been the instrumental 'Egyptian Reggae' 😅
@@salthead3 I agree with you, maybe my favourite song is “Not yet three”. I think it’s beautiful.
Fil, what an awesome way to get your point across by going back to an earlier video. Just my opinion, listening to Michael Jackson was a breath of fresh air to my ears as opposed to the pitch corrected and/or auto tuned songs. You clearly proved beyond any doubt that one of the greatest singers of all time wasn’t able to get the notes absolutely perfect during the recording takes, yet he still could come close and sound great. My hope is that people will realize that your analysis videos are not meant to insult, but to educate. Yet as Carl Jung said, “Thinking is difficult, that’s why people judge.” I appreciate what you do and your integrity as a musician who believes in telling the truth using objective data and leaving no stone unturned. Many thanks, Fil!
"And there we have it" again. Irrefutable proof. Great explanation and demo, Fil! All doubt removed with professional investigation.
He's not a professional musician by definition.
@@thekeysman6760 If you play music, write music and teach music and get paid for same....professional musician. Prove me wrong. And further more, I said professional investigation!
@@thekeysman6760 Does it make you feel like a bigger person than you actually are when you act like a pedantic asshole to people? Do you realise you come across as a sad, angry individual with nothing better to do than criticise others? Because I can assure you that's how people look at you.
@@thekeysman6760 Why do you insist on being a pedantic, unlikeable, self-aggrandising tool? Are you that insecure you have to criticise every minor error people make, even when they don't actually make one?
I think this needed to be done to show many people what even an excellent singer could achieve. If humans to exactly replicate physical motions, those who are good at shooting free throws in basketball would never miss.
If humans could replicate a waveform exactly each time, then what's the point? Let the AI do it.
Perfectly done, and this of course makes sense - this is how it HAS to be when live - when done normally and naturally even with someone so accurate
Great example! The only way someone won't get that is if they really don't want to accept it because it threatens the reputation of their favorite artist.
Michael was the whole package. So talented, yet he wasn’t perfect. Don’t know how better you can explain it Fil. Must be exhausting. Thanks for explaining again!
It is not a matter of perfection. Humans are organic living beings, not machines. NO SINGER CAN DUPLICATE THE SAME SOUND TWICE. It doesn't matter how talented they are. Saying Michael wasn't perfect is like saying he was a living being, i.e. there is not such thing as perfection. I do not think you are getting the point of this demonstration.
Errr….he was perfect. That’s the point!
‘Perfect’ does not mean repeating the exact same performance each time.
Got the point!
Interesting concept here... discussing what is "perfect" in human vocal performance. By any human perception standard, he was perfect. But (thankfully) we humans are NOT robots. We are unbelievably nuanced and creative...and that's why this is such a great example to show that the only way to get a perfectly matching waveform is by replaying a recording. Digital analytical tools have their value and Fil is using them in unique ways to forensically show us how the "sausage got made".
Why is this even a discussion? The only thing that matters is the final product.
I was one of the doubters. And I was looking for some time for you to show an ACTUAL singer differences. I'm convinced. Awesome video!
Wow wow Michael was so accurate
Not a Jackson fan, but man, that consistency is amazing.
As a singer, this is no surprise to me. No singer will ever be able to be mathematically accurate.. And that’s a good thing. Nothing is as boring as a 100% perfect singing voice. 😂
I have always said (when commenting on people's different tastes in music) that if everyone liked the same music then all music would sound the same... and that would be boring.
How would you know it's boring if it's physically impossible?
@@Arcessitor Watch the same movie all day every day for the rest of your life and watch nothing else.
Then come back and tell me if it is boring or not.
Applied to music.. pick your favorite song and put it on repeat for the rest of your life.
The personality lies in the imperfections
For anyone who says Taylor Swift can hit the lines the same because she's a better singer than Michael Jackson, I direct you to her 2009 SNL performance. That's what Taylor really sounds like without any lip syncing, auto tune, or pitch correction.
Michael Jackson was at the very top of the best of the best. To say Taylor isn't in the same league doesn't even cut it. Jackson was a 1st ballot hall of fame legend, and Swift is playing T-ball.
Taylor’s voice as a little girl was low (watch that 2001 home video that’s been going around), then puberty hit and she sounded really high, then it got low again (which is what you hear when she became in her mid 20s to now).
Her 2009 performance doesn’t matter because her vocal cords aren’t thin anymore (which is due to being really young).
She also did a Tiny Desk in 2019 which is one of the best ways to hear her actual singing voice. It's fine; she can sing. Just like thousands of others at open mic nights and bar bands. All the rest of her global career is an exercise in data analytics and marketing.
You cannot tell her idiot fans that though.
@bitteroldhousecat9304 - I just listened to that SNL clip (her 'Monologue Song') and was bracing myself for many cringe moments because I have Perfect Pitch, but then I actually heard _nothing_ wrong!
And I'm certainly not just saying this because of being a Swiftie (which I am not 😄), but I did buy her album '1989' at the time, 10 years or so ago, and she sang really well on it, too! 🙂
MJ played it safe in his singing though. He stuck mostly with short notes and shouted rising and falling whoops instead of singing high notes.
Jackson is incredible.
Yeah he was incredible... incredible POS
Aww, didn't he answer your letters? @@jockster5525
One of a kind!
I love the positivity that Fil has in his videos.... Let's try to keep the comments section positive also.
Fil, the music industry hates you, but WE Love You! Thanks for this!
It's amazing how the "naked ear" perceives notes as being identical, but the microscope of digital analysis reveals the true unique fingerprints of each performance!!! 🎉❤ Awesome job!!!
Lots of appreciation heading your way Fil. Always loved your channel. Love it even more now.
Who doubted this in the first place? There wasn’t any pitch correction’s software or hardware back in the day when MJ recorded this. I’ve perfect pitch, I am 50 years old. I’ve heard in 1985 the he didn’t nail every pitch 100% and I hear it now, but that’s how singers and music are supposed to sound.
This is an excellent example to show unbelievers 👏🏼
I agree with you-awesome example! If this doesn’t get his point across, I don’t know what will. As Carl Jung said, “Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.” I think there’s some truth to this because I mean, do the nonbelievers really THINK first?
@glamgal7106 That's a good word. Most people can't think critically and have a fair conversation, so they judge, yell and point fingers.
Good you did this video coming from the other side: Even when a perfectionist and intonation monster like MJ delivers five times exactly the same sounding phrase, the graphs are not the same.
Doubters who think that MJ is trying to sing differently each time should watch the linked original video; it shows he is not trying to change/optimise. (By the way: What a humble, disciplined, perfect and still relaxed singer he is!)
For people with audio knowledge the video could start with a 1 minute summary, playing the audio samples quickly one after the other (=> sound de facto the same) and then showing all graphs together (=> not two of them match). You could give the long explanation after that. But who am I to tell you how to structure your videos. I should rather thank you for doing this important "enlightenment" work, so: THANK YOU!
If MJ, who was renowned for being accurate, could not sing exactly in time/tune with himself, nobody can. I mean no disrespect to him when I say this. He was better at it than most and it's impressive to see how close he got over the six takes. Singers aren't machines (fortunately).
There's a couple of fallacies here - one is that just because something is unlikely, difficult, or improbable doesn't mean it's impossible.
If you take the highest level singers or musicians, like a Celine Dion, or today a guitarist like Matteo Mancuso, they DO have the kind of pitch/rhythmic control that is beyond most humans, no matter how hard they train.
The same goes for highest level Indian classical or jazz musicians. They really do have that almost inhuman control.
Don Henley has sung his songs for decades. MJ was doing a few takes on something he probably hadn't even rehearsed before. Big difference.
I don't think you meant this, but want to point out for the group that, for all intents and purposes, this _is_ exactly in tune and in time. To the human ear and capability, that's it. The problem is that people are looking at a readout on a screen, rather than listening with their ears (and, I would suggest, somewhat eye-rollingly) their souls. They're not hearing the music, they're analysing it.
Those slight differences are not imperfections so much as just differences, although you certainly might prefer one take over another. Kind of like the different versions of The Scream (an apt picture for this metaphor, given what it depicts, haha). They're all different, and maybe there are people who have preferences, but each is its own thing. There isn't a perfect version and then lesser copies, there's just several copies. Musicians' variety, even at the height of their personal precision, is not a bug, it's a feature.
This video is only meant to explain to people who don’t get it what’s the purpose of the software and why this software can eg detect when filters and pitch correction has been applied to the natural voice of a singer, or if an audio file is the copy of another or a different recording.
Amazing to see people in the comments still not understanding that this is in no way a critique of MJ or any other singers, just a technical explanation on a sound engineering software.
@@AlienEntity1 Unless reproduced from a recording there will still be variance under this type of detailed analysis. REALLY. I have no stake in proving this, and the only reason I'm replying here is that from reading your comment I can see that you are not just here to troll but actually engage. So FWIW, I replied.
@@CareyDissmore Appreciate it! I'm curious to run some tests on my own playing, using a click track.
I do a lot of studio work and precision can be very important.
I'm not saying every musician can nail something the same way, but I know some who can.
But let's face it, most people cop out and use autotune and backing tracks, it's convenient to do it.
Well done Fil.
I'm not even making these videos and I feel frustrated when people I speak to doubt your work.
Not sure what more you can do to get your point across.
I believe Fil has gone above and beyond to get his point across. This analysis of Michael is simple and to the point, especially for those who either fail to grasp or don’t want to understand. Today I just read this quote from Carl Jung: “Thinking is difficult, that’s why most people judge.”
@@glamgal7106 Oh absolutely brilliant quote - love it.
I think it was a few videos back Fil had made the point that we all have our favourite artists however when his analysis shows them to be, miming, auto-tuning, pitch correcting or whatever they get defensive and refuse to believe what the software is showing, I think he added that some of them go so far as to unsubscribe from his channel - some people really are the most pathetic creatures at times.
It’s been very interesting watching your process and presentation, learned a lot. To me it’s also the exact variation that makes music relatable to my soul . Great work and please keep it up. Thank you.
If anyone still doesn't get this, don't waste your time on them any more. You've dumbed it down (doing a great job of it) to where if somebody still thinks you're wrong, they probably didn't have enough sense to figure out how to turn their phone or computer on and needed assistance.
Great job Fil. I could actually hear some differences between those takes, the obvious ones, but to see it on-screen proves your idea of a vocal "fingerprint". And Michael is one of the best singers of all time!
'Fingerprint' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly because obviously sound doesn't have a fingerprint. Not quotation marks quoting Fil. 🕊️
What's this video about? Who's offended?
I knew MJ was a great singer when I was a little kid. I heard many others who were not as pitch perfect and noticed the difference. He was the reference and he was a little kid at the time. So amazing!
Yes! He didn’t learn this, he was born with this gift.
Yes, we are here for the video. Yes, I am also here for his hair. Thank you for the video!
Fil’s hair is always perfectly imperfect! 😂 As someone who was a teen in the late 70’s and early 80’s, to me Fil’s hair always looks “the way a cute guy’s hair SHOULD look”! 😂😂😂
@@DawnDavidson Yes, he does remind me of a boy I knew in school.. Way back in the day, lol.
@annabodhi38 and @dawndavidson the hair combined with the accent (and talent!) is quite irresistible. 😂
You're releasing this because you're getting a lot of irrational heat from the Swifties, aren't you?
Truth always hurts. And ignorance is always around. Thanks Fil for the true facts.
Fil has always been truthful and uses every means to back up his analyses. I think what the problem is that if ignorance is bliss, obviously there are people who are desperate to be happy with not knowing what the truth is. They want to believe what they want to believe. And unfortunately, we can’t force them to believe what is proven right in front of them. I can understand Fil’s frustration.
Loved this video the first time around and wish more people would understand that you can't just "sing the identical thing over and over again 'by accident'" as that just doesn't happen.
It cannot happen with human beings. Maybe with animals? We are frequencies and vibrations.
@@jecinasema5190 It has nothing to do with hitting the same "frequency". It's the micro vibrations that make up that note that will vary each time. Unless you play the same tuned piano key, there will be tiny variations on the sound formation, imperceptible by ear, but they'll show up on the pitch monitoring software.
Great job, Fil! As always, your feedback is well founded and engaging.
When Fil originally released this video I thought it was a great easy to understand explanation of how vocal lines work. I think it’s great he uploaded it again for all the new subscribers and viewers to see. Hopefully it will help in convincing those who don’t want to believe the truth!
Some might get it, others will still be sitting with thier fingers in their ears.
@@dcallan812 As you need to when listening to Swift or most chart music.
I remember when Fil originally released this analysis video. It was easy to understand. Whether the doubters will understand, I can only hope so but who knows?
Fil's been accurate from the beginning.
Anyone who said differently can either own up to it, or look even worse for denying the truth.
it's amazing to see just how good Michael was - - all the takes sound so close - - tough to do that, but yep, clearly each take, or moment of each take, is indeed unique regardless - so, no doubt about it, looking at the takes under Fil's microscope confirms that each one, even though it does sound the same, is still quite unique unto itself.
They didn't sound "the same" to me though. Did you not hear on at least two of the takes that his voice "faded" at different points? Also, if you pay close enough attention and really listen, you can in fact make out the different levels of sharpness in Jackson's voice. Which isn't to say that the tech used in this video doesn't show all that with more clarity, because OF COURSE it does, just that you don't really "need" it to do so, to hear that not every take is exactly alike. [The natural pitch in some of the takes is also very subtly different, if you really listen]
Michael Jackson was of course a phenomenal singer, I mean he pretty much ruled music for all of 2 decades for a reason...but you don't need technology to prove he was really just a man. And besides which it's overtly analytical in a way that isn't really "needed" to prove a point you could just as easily prove by VOCALLY analysing a voice. [Which I honestly believe Fil could do, he is a singer so he could say "look out for this" or "pay close attention to this bit", using this technology is a form of complacency]
@@Requiemslove thanks for the great reply Requiemslove, nicely written - I'm on the same page with you - like I get that the takes are not identical, that's why I initially described then as "close", amazingly close actually - may be one of the first times I ever listened to Michael to that level regardless that it was via YT - - and not that it matters at all, but I'm a critical listener too with a Berklee background, studio experience and a reference playback system in my home so yes, I really do understand your reply - - and yes - - I fully agree with you 100% - - as sort of a side note Requiemslove, I've come to expect to be "seeing" one thing and hearing another - - most stuff out there in video land is "fixed" to varying degrees, but the real bummer for me is how bands are capitalizing on this technology during "live" performances - I'm old enough to not want to talk about age and was weened on all the usual stuff from the middle late 60's and into the 70's only to find myself streaming blues and playing jazz records these days because they aren't nearly as processed as most of the stuff out there - on a whim I bought one of Mary Spender's CDs after seeing her on Rick Beato's channel - I didn't make it through a singe track, not a single track - the entire CD is so computerized and perfect, I mean "perfect" - that there's simply no humanization or actual "unfixed" playing to relate to, regardless that I suspect and understand that she's a very good writer. btw - kinda funny, back in the day I gave an excellent pressing of Thriller to a friend, didn't seem that important to me - not that I sit around and listen to MJ all the time but what a dope! Thanks for writing Requiemslove - catch ya later. ( :
@@skip1835 I see it more as being receptive to musical intricacies, personally. I lack any formal education musically. Tried to self teach myself guitar but I lack dexterity. [Sadly]
I would say that I'm a "former" fan of MJ's. For reasons I never fully understood I was big on him when I was a kid and a teenager. But it gradually "waned" over time, which was exarcebated via the scandals, although I never could really "believe" what they'd said.
With respect, we're of different times, although I suspect we probably have some musical interest in common. I reckon if you said a few of the bands you were "weened" on I'd probably recognise them. No doubt at least a couple are some "rather big" British bands, heck more institutions that EVERYONE knows about and have no doubt at least partially been influenced by. Heck, Queen, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, the Who and [of course] The Beatles, just to roll some obvious names out. [They're all in the mix, somewhere in my musical collage] Heck, I forgot the first music "thing" I ever owned. The Rolling Stones. [I had their 40 licks TAPE...]
In regard to Mary Spender, because I don't want this getting overlong. I got to wonder why curiosity got the better of you? I just see "red flags" with her. The reason that I see those flags is because of one very wonderful musician called Norah Jones. Now you may or may not have heard of this 9 time grammy winner who sold 16 million albums in her first year [a record until 2011] as well as 40 million albums before she was 30, but the point is she's always kept her peace, never expresses what she really thinks on most things [except in relation to...well... music stuff] and crucially [at least as far as I can gather it] cares about her music, cares about REAL music, delights in live music and more specifically the playing of it with others, and has generally always had her focus [except for a few brief stints in movies] on it. I'd go so far as to say that if/when I have children, she's the ideal role-model I'd want a child of mine to cling to if they wanted to do music.
I bring this up not to "brag" in any way about my favourite musician, but to say that she [along with others] has shown me for YEARS where the real music is. Heck, she's basically the front door to a lot of other things I discovered because of her, as well as the genesis of what I'd learned when younger. The salient point being [I know this has dragged on, sorry] is that in spite of your unfortunate experience there's FAR MORE GOOD STUFF OUT THERE than you may in fact realise. Despite the impression of mainstream commercialised music, or the implications of videos like this, and the corner cutting of many who honestly LACK TALENT, you just need to know where to look. I trusted my gut in regard to Spender, who IMO seems to care more about her opinions and some kind of over-arching agenda, than she does about music. [I could tell, by looking just at the youtube video titles she wouldn't be "for me", Mr's Jones has taught me well]
@@Requiemslove Whoa - the music stuff aside, Requiemslove, what an amazing response - - more like reading an email from a long time friend, thank you - - - there's perspective on everything (getting back to the music stuff) that I spoke of as I'm sure there is for you as well - - - ummm, the Mary Spender thing really was a simple whim and that more because Rick obviously liked her work - I had no idea of her background or even how worthy or not worthy her music is/was at the time and I bought that particular CD. I brought it up because it's an example that so explicitly highlights my issue with many modern recordings (which sort of relates to some of the stuff Fil is talking about), and that's not to say that I'm right, to each his own - but I can simply imagine her working on her stuff with a laptop using pro tools or some editing software to polish every micro second of her work - and that's very obvious when listening to her CD and the reason I never made it completely through any of the tracks. I actually had a few little thoughts of sending it back to her, not for the money, but to express that it's so over polished that there's (as I previously expressed) very little hint of "humans" playing and singing - - although I may have mislead you a bit about relegating myself to blues and jazz, I'm always on the search for decent music and if any of those discoveries happen to be well recorded, well, all the better (the Spender thing being one of those searches) - - an example of what I really like "sound & playing" wise would be the vinyl stuff from "Tone Poet" - - those recordings, in some instances actually outshine the music itself - very realistic, very little (if any) compressing - but again, that would be a side example - - - interesting you bring up Norah Jones - - - wonderful stuff, generally excellent recordings (imo) - - - which reminds me, a bass player I worked with for over a decade brought her up one day - we're both audiophiles and we were having a bit of a reunion and he asked me if I had any of her stuff (that question was in the context of us talking about hi end play back equipment) - the thing is, here we are, into jazz and later Steely Dan, he LOVES classical stuff and music along those lines and he's asking me about Norah - Requiemslove, he actually asked me if I had her box set which seemed so out of "left field" at that moment - but again, in the context of hi end playback, as much to do with the sound of her recordings as the music itself - which anyway, yeah, I do and did at the time (her box set "the Vinyl Collection") - but that little interlude has stuck with me because of the surrounding circumstances I just described, and so here you are, a couple of years later expressing your fondness for her music - - - so yes, I love her writing and presentation too - I would guess that you're getting that my tastes in music don't really have any solid lines - from Hendrix to Jones, I'm a nut case for a very wide variety even though I expressed this sort of relegation to blues and jazz. I'm the one getting wordy but my attraction to blues is that most of those recordings are not "overly" produced, they generally feature real drummers, bass players, real musicianship in general which I really appreciate regardless that quite often the structures of blues is very old school. Sometimes I just want to flip on the stereo and let someone else chose the music, thus this streaming thing that I often use - it's great, no DJ, just tune after tune from the 20's all that way to Stevie Ray and beyond - a very enjoyable escape - I knew nothing about Bernard Allison, he would be an example of a "discovery" for me while listening to this stream. Sorry I rambled, so great to make your acquaintance - happy music/listening - Skip.
@@skip1835 Ooof, yea, that's always a gamble. Of course most of the time when you lose it's not a big deal because "losing" in that parlance is a rather large catch all term for something not quite "hitting"
For me in this instance I chose to dabble in "extremes" just to have some kind of framework to look at. So, for me an example of an impulse buy or a "whim" as you put it.
Well, I "won" if that's the best way to put it in 2001, with actually one of the first albums I ever brought. [instead of something brought for me] I'd only been in college for a year or so and one of my favourite things really, was computers. Well, I picked up an album that I would go on to learn [ironically from computers and the still new fangled internet] was a pretty BIG deal. But I didn't know that at the time, I knew of the band, one of their members living barely 40 miles or so away, and I know I'm rambling so I'll just say it. Radiohead, OK Computer. Heck, I picked it up just cause it referenced computers. I really didn't like it the first couple of listens but soon enough it dawned on me this album was hellishly intimidating. I stuck with it. Took me about 6 attempts to really get INTO it. This is an example of something you can listen to thousands of times... and STILL find something you missed. I would go on to get most of Radioheads albums, and finding them turned me towards another great band of a similar vein, Muse.[Real big culture wars between Muse fans and Radiohead fans... back in the day]
And now we come to the "why did I buy this" section. I confess I was tempted to mention Amy Winehouse's "back to black album, having brought that on a whim but one that was sort of "influenced" by the furore about her back at that time, [said time being 2006] but if I mention that I must mention... HER and I told myself I'd stop going on about my favourite thing, with this one. [So I'll set my NoJo fandom aside, for a bit] More grating than a slightly dirty sounding alleged Jazz star who was really just a lionised pop star the media was falling over, who effectively just had a "unique" sound I could honestly take or leave and was nothing like... no STOP IT, [gets a hold of oneself] well I could go 2 ways with this one.
There is either the Clannad Un Diolem option which is basically Enya only without the mystery of another unique sound going off on her own but some manner of overtly artsy fartsy Irish folk group that just did NOTHING for me [And it should have done, cause I brought it cause Enya, side note, found out about her from being a huge Tolkienite... but that's another story]
Or there's the Rasmus and Dead Letters. Think I'll go with this one. You know when you buy something and you "want" to like it, you tell yourself 5 listens in that it's alright, it's going to get good, your going to like it? Well, that was my experience here. Now I can forgive the Enya with her Irish folk daddies thing, on account of the huge whallop [is that a word?] of talent which is Enya, but this? I found myself resenting Rasmus's "Dead Letters album by the 10th listen. I'd learned from Radiohaad to give music a chance so, I stuck with it another 10 listens but by then I was just like "Sorry Radiohead, the lesson is wasted on on these ones..." as Rasmus played their one defining characteristic as a band INTO THE DUST. [Boy do I have buyers remorse on this one]
Anyway, sorry to ramble on. Just a few more thoughts really. But yea, I get it, music has to hit you in some way. When it doesn't it truly sucks. Hey, I made it through without mentioning well you know who. Sorry MJ, NJ stole my heart, please don't haunt her from wherever you are. [She's actually kind of lovely, I think you'd like her]
Do you reckon dead Kings of pop haunt folks? [Hope not]
In recording double-, triple-, or more vocal tracks singing the same part, the purpose is actually to have those small differences that fill out the sound. Even if you could miraculously be exact, then there'd be no point to it - it would just sound like one track.
I believe the "Chorus" effect was designed originally to make double-tracking unnecessary - saving expensive studio time. I love recording and love the happy accidents that sometimes come out better than the original plan.
Very well explained. Thanks, Fil!
Great vid! Great to see, that even six nailed takes look so differently.
Having sung multiple takes in my bedroom studio, it's amazing to see how close MJ's takes are. Mine are not 😅
I said you wanna be startin' somethin'
You got to be startin' somethin'
I said you wanna be startin' somethin'
You got to be startin' somethin'
It's too high to get over (yeah, yeah)
You're too low to get under (yeah, yeah)
You're stuck in the middle (yeah, yeah)
And the pain is thunder (yeah, yeah)
Spot on, isn't it? 😁
This is an amazing representation of how someone who is so amazingly pitch-perfect having slight variations in pitch - it's impossible. There are some "live" performances or concerts that background vocals are used, where based on the length of each concert and frequency, perfect pitch can't be expected. Part of what someone is paying for is the "experience" of the show. Similarly, there are many performers who are great, but not pitch-perfect, who require more than a dozen takes in the studio to get a chorus down. But I'm really pleased how you pulled this audio of one of the greatest pop singers, in his prime, and used it as a demonstration. Love your videos!
He was the most talented and skilled triple-threat entertainer of all time, for all time.
Triple threat?
@@precioussoulmj07 Sing, dance, and act. That's the triple-thread, or trifecta. If a person does all three very well, the sky's the limit in entertainment :)
I'm more into rock but at the time there was a 'making of' we are the world broadcast on tv with the singers in the studio, you heard Michael singing live and a dry vocal (no effects); i was impressed at how good of a singer he was.
I was impressed as well, and I'm predominantly old school Country music. He wasn't my cup of tea musically, but he's one of a rare few that actually qualifies as a legendary icon, in my opinion. Which is a hard reach for me to make such a call.
Yay!! Lets expose more people with real talent! ❤
It's amazing he has to even show this again. But we know what fan is short for.
The irony that "Swifties" aren't really all that swift.
Brilliant demo! Sadly, some will still not understand.
Just watched Judy Graubart (The Electric Company) and I'm LOVING THE HAIR! I came for the analysis, stayed for the hair!
All joking aside, this is so important! The human voice is amazing, and we lose something valuable when we rob it of its natural variations. Thank you for keeping a measure of honesty in the industry.
It was a good idea to revisit this video to analyze the detail in each unique vocal "fingerprint".
'Fingerprint' in inverted commas implying so-called or supposedly because obviously sound doesn't have a fingerprint. Not quotation marks quoting Fil. 🕊️
@thekeysman6760 I meant "fingerprint" as a quote from Fil. since it is what he aptly said. If that's incorrect, just keep scrolling. It won't be my only mistake today!
With 2 degrees in electronics and specializing in audio/video I completely understand what he talks about and he is correct.
He also doesn't really give his opinion on wether he likes it or not and never really talks down about the songs.
Also, I was talking to my sisters kid and he is much younger than I. And he said that himself and his friends don't go to live concerts for the live signing. They go for the dancing and party like atmosphere of the crowd. It's a rush when hundreds of people are all yelling and cheering for the same thing. He and his friends don't care at all if the song is not live. He said it literally doesn't matter. FYI he's 45.
So explain what you think Fil is talking about please. As many under the video don't seem to have a clue!
@thekeysman6760 one of my teachers taught wood shop and electronics and he told us that voice waveforms are like the grain in wood. You can't have two that are identical, even in the same tree. For me, taking both classes it made perfect sense.
My wife says it's like an oil painting that's hand painted. They may look the same but under a microscope they can't have identical brush strokes. Only a computer can do that.
@@thekeysman6760 What do you think the point was?
MJ had one hell of an ear, and was one of the best vocalist and entertainer. great video 2x👍
You can’t even get a stringed instrument with frets to be exactly the same every time. It’s ridiculous to think a vocalist could.
Nicely and accurately stated.
I was going to say a similar thing but with an open string on a perfectly tuned guitar. It's absolutely impossible.
I absolutely love your videos. I have learned so much and have such a great appreciation for great singers.
Magnificent analysis as always. It is always helpful to see the difference
Jackson? One of a kind!
You should reedit important videos, as RUclips (Google) is pushing older videos down in the dust!
first time I heard that song, yes before auto-tune existed, it sounded like MJ voice was auto-tuned compared to all the other voices in that song. His level of voice control was just that insanely high 😂
Super example Fil!
A singer with MJ's decades of professional level experience, both in & out of the studio, certainly should serve as proof of concept to doubters. With very few exceptions, that's such rarified air. Many artists can only dream of having that much, consistent work. I can only think of a handful of examples, artists with more performance time than Michael.
anyway, without too much question, physics wins!
Thanks again! rock on \m/
A minute in and Fil’s hair gets turned up to 11… Epic.
🤣🤣
Looking at how accurate MJ's pitch and rhythm are makes me all the sadder that his life was so messed up. A real master of song and dance.
I got to see it earlier on Patreon. I never watch the link until another day. I think it took 8 hours to record We are the World, it was daylight when they went outside. Thank you Fil for the hours it took to give us this video. Great job,, Rock On
It's amazing. I didn't know that getting this close in consecutive takes is even possible.
I enjoy listening to MJ's music. Now I'm enjoying looking at it too.
Excellent analysis, Fil...You really know your stuff and that doesn't come easily for me to say because 2 or 3 years ago I gave you a real hard time concerning your analysis of the acapella group Voctave...in fact , you did a follow up video shortly after trying to explain your previous analysis...I'm here today in front of God and everyone to sincerely apologize to you for giving you such a hard time when I was obviously so mistaken... I have now watched enough of your videos over the last couple of years to know that you indeed know what you're talking about...again, I apologize for giving you a hard time back then...keep being awesome !!!...
There will NEVER be another person who comes close to the talent of Michael Jackson. RIP! I still miss you.
If human beings were able to replicate EXACTLY a physical performance, there would be no need to hold games/tournaments. Every golfer would hit the exact same tee shot EVERY time. Every pitcher would throw a strike EVERY time. Every runner would place exactly the same in every race. Clearly, even highly skilled, expertly trained, athletes/artists cannot exactly replicate even intensely practiced actions.
Unfortunately MJ was a pedo.
This shows how MJ had such a good ear and could replicate his voice pretty close.
Michael Jackson was technically a brilliant and very accurate singer, but even he was no machine and this shows it. This is in a different universe from people using prerecorded audio files.
That is not to say that Michael, were he alive today, would not be tempted to perhaps 'augment' his vocals too. He was a perfectionist after all and you can get carried away. I'm not the guy to say that people using audio files live all can't sing. I think a good deal of them are just looking for perfection, total reliability and the ability to repeat the same performance again and again without any drop in quality no matter what the outside circumstances are. Of course that misses the point of what live music is about. But it is also a reflection of today's audience expectations. I believe that audiences today are less tolerant of "brave failures" than they used to be.
While I dislike lip synch/miming, at least be honest about whether it is being used. I can see it being used for voce-preservation reasons because one can destroy one's voice if doing extreme vocals night after night. Just be honest.. and I mean honest about 'why' it is being done.. fans would likely understand. I mean.. choose one of the following:
1) 100% actual live performances every night on tour for the next 5 years.. but zero new music after that b/c voice destroyed
2) 50% live vocals/50% pre-recorded/mimed for the next 5 years... but another 10+ years of new music from the same artist.
I know this is an extreme over-exaggeration in most cases... but vocalists do damage their moneymaker over time.. and this does not even account for aging.
OP, as an industry session musician for many decades, I can't help but see how you misunderstand MJ's skills. He wasn't "accurate" per se at all, as we have always been able to hear, and now see, yet he was accurately able to work with his voice. He knew when to allow deliberate flatness or sharpness. That's very different to supposed 'accuracy'.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee No, you've missed the point there. Are you a professional musician for the last 30+ years as I am as a session musician? I suggest you digest what I originally said and see that part of your thought is right but not regarding the bigger picture we can now see and have always known. MJ's deliberate flatness or sharpness _is_ the funk! 🕊️
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee A 'professional' has a paid position with their skill and it is their main income. How can you say you "play and sing professionally" unless you are what I described or are actually meaning you think your skills are 'professional', please? Which is it? My ears and hands are/were! worth more than the MU session rate! So I do know what I'm saying and what I mean. Other colleagues (professionals, by definition!) agree with me and say the same. You are on your own with your belief there. Was just trying to help you out of your misunderstanding. But nevermind. Be well. 🕊️
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee Btw, if you fancy taking the MIT Music IQ test, do! I'm in the top 10% internationally. Let's see what you get. 🕊️
Never doubted your work for a minute but it's still good to see the difference as a point of reference.
As a biologist, I just love data!
Also a biologist ...and evidence!
Define 'data' in relation to this video, please?
@@thekeysman6760 Evidence v. "PROOF"
I thought graphs 1 and 6 were still incredibly close!!! Great video, great analysis. Great points made... and learnt we have vocal "finger" prints!
Thank you for sharing this.. was interesting to see 'how close' he was able to come. Was not his biggest fan but had plenty of respect for his skill. This illustrates perfectly that even one of the most skilled professionals is not able to completely replicate one vocal line even seconds later to the level at which the computer can differentiate between them. They can sound exactly the same.. but at the microscopic level at which this program operates those subtle differences that we cannot hear are plainly visible.
But they DON'T sound exactly the same.
I don't need this technology to highlight what my ears can pick up on. Jackson's voice fades differently with at least 2 or 3 of the 6 takes, for one, and the sharpness is only too close to call on a couple of the takes, while on the rest you can in fact subtly make it out. His vocal pick-up [IE the timing] is "not" too perfect to differentiate one take from the next, [it almost is but not quite] and also the pitch is NOT 100% the same in each take, again, very subtle differences.
Seriously, FULLY LISTEN, you don't need technology to explain to you what your ears can pick up on. It's interesting on a technical level, only. [But you don't "need" it]
@@Requiemslove I said 'they can' I did not say 'they do'. The truth is, however, that even if the DID sound exactly the same, this program would pick up the differences and visually illustrate them so that even the least intelligent among us would be able to recognize that they 'are not' the same.
@@uoabigaillevey Yes, I get that. Fil more than adequately explains the very same thing in this video.
All I'm saying is that the "proving the point" is irrelevant because for I'd say most of us [believe it or not, the majority of people are not "Swifties" or enamoured of other such fakes] we already GET it. We know and understand that no singer can 100% replicate the same vocal, that every take is different, and believe it or not... we kind of "like" that about real music.
Beside which, don't you think that if your favourite singer/musician "could" do the same vocal every single time, wouldn't it send them crazy? [I'm a NoJo fan, personally, pretty sure she'd DESPISE that... and you won't find many better singers than her...]
@@Requiemslove Agreed. I much prefer individual performances to be unique.. because if I wanted the same performance I would just listen to the recording. If I were still among those who pay to see live concerts I would feel cheated if the vocals were pre-recorded unless under specific circumstances... like they are impossible to be done live.. or the vocalist is literally too sick to do them.. etc. And even then, I would still prefer to be forewarned about their use.
Damn. This is one of the best videos on this topic. Perfectly clear. Thanks so much.