THIS is proof that Michael Jackson COULDN'T sing the SAME thing twice!
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- Tonight we're getting into the details of pitch by looking at Michael Jackson singing the same line... SIX times!
Original Video - • RARE Michael Jackson r...
TIME STAMPS -
0:00 Intro
2:45 Michael's 6 Vocal Takes
4:48 'We Are'
8:36 Take Randomisation
11:04 The Timing Issue
12:21 The Final Principle
13:00 The ‘I Can Nail It!’ Theory
For more, check out my other sites! / wingsofpegasus www.wingsofpegasusband.com/ / wingsofpegasus Twitter - @wingsofpegasus Insta - @wingsofpegasusofficial - Zábava
Actually I have a new appreciation for Mr.Jackson's singing ability after seeing this. Of course no one can naturally sing the same thing identically multiple times, unless they're a robot. But the fact that he was able to get this close is truly impressive.
He is one of the few artists to be rated as a star level vocalist in the "pop" world, I actually think many of the critics in media often dismiss him as an actual musician but those that worked with him say he was absolutely a musician, even if not in the traditional sense.
That tone, it’s incredible
@@robcmore2004true that
Actually its possible to do so a few times in a tow but obviously not every single time you sing. EVEN. If you have perfect pitch,…. Theres times where your voice can be off
I think Don Henley can =) (Sarc)
"And there we have it!" Irrefutable proof. Fil knows his stuff and can back it up. One of the best musical analysts on You Tube!
Let’s see how he gets on….
And courteous, respectful, and generous: It is always a pleasure to hear his entertaining analysis.
Yup.
Perfecto Fil. This verifies, to the doubters, what you found during your analysis of the Eagles. To those who get it, we had no doubt you were correct in that analysis. I’m sure, especially among older artists, a lot of of them are lip syncing live shows. It’s not the legs that go first. It’s vocal range.
yeh wop another viewer said the columbo of youtube and just by coincidence last sat. flipping channels johnny cash singing sundsy morning coming down on columbo rerun and just one more thing haha mate uk several years ago asked how ya gettin on
I love your point that nobody can be pitch perfect every single time. You would have to be a robot to be pitch perfect every single time. Just because you’re not pitch perfect every time doesn’t mean that you’re not a great singer.
I understand you 100% Fil. No worries ❤, and I"ve known this to be true for decades, even before the advent of pitch analysis. It just makes perfect sense. And the same would hold true for guitar, and for wind instruments such as saxophone and trumpet...it can never be the same twice.
The greatest singers fully understand the need to bend a few cents north or south of perfect pitch to draw out the emotion. Frank Sinatra is an example.
Best,
Fezzy
And what would be the point in being same over and over again???
I KEEP TELLING MYSELF THAT.
Elvis was 😊
I dare to differ.
Bob Dylan can sing his lines every time absolutely the same way! Out of tune. Since 60 years. And we love him! 😁
Thank you, Fil!! My daughter and I had the opportunity to see MJ in person, and it is a performance we will never forget!! What a great vocalist, and showman was he-he is sorely missed...
What concert did you guys see.
Not by all his vict!ms
@@theeXodusof730 In Detroit
@@jadebel7006 he never touched anyone, he was a victim himself.
@@jadebel7006 what victims goof? The same ones who magically never went after him "criminally" & just wanted monetary gain? 🤡
MJ was known for being very good at creating his own harmonies. His voices coincided on top of each other and gave you that feeling that they all sounded exactly the same, his harmonies in Thriller, Liberian Girl and many other songs are incredible. It's even more interesting to make your harmonies sound this good, even if all the voices don't match perfectly.
In fact it's the tiny differences, that give "body" to his harmonies.
Exactly. I think it is quite possible that this was deliberate.
You should know that most autotune programs have a so-called humanizer to make the singing not quite perfect.I don't know whether he used it, but it would theoretically have been possible..He was still a great artist!😎
@ohtoriginalhimbeertoni he didn't use it. To my knowledge the only track where his voice was genuinely manipulated, to my knowledge, was 2000 Watts, where they lowered the pitch of his voice several steps.
@@Gabrielle4870 I don't know where you got this information from. If it is true, I must have been extremely mistaken.
Nevertheless, I still think he was a brilliant artist!
Hi Fil! I saw and heard the proof that it's impossible to sing the same song 100% exactly the same way each time you sing it, that the vocal frequencies won't allow it. How can anyone argue against that? It was an excellent analysis, and you are an awesome teacher. Rock!
Because there are people out there who will NEVER be 'confused' by facts and logic. C'mon, you know this. :-)
Don Henley proves time after time that he can sing it exactly 100% the same way each and every time.
I watched the excellent documentary 'The Greatest Night in Pop' less than 10 hours ago, and when this exact scene with MJ appeared on it, I thought "this would be an excellent analysis video for Fil!". And here we are. Let's add 'mind-reading' to Fil's arsenal of special skills.
I watched that a few weeks ago on Netflix. I also watched a documentary about “Creedence Clearwater Revival” yesterday on Netflix and I also watched a Billy Joel concert in Madison Square Garden on CBS in the U.S. last night. He was auto tuned but the show was great considering he’s 74 years old. The show was actually taped a few weeks ago and they then went and put auto tune on his voice.
So it‘s quite clear… MJ was singing WITHOUT pitch correction 👏👏👏 - the reason why 6 takes don‘t match up. Bravo, Michael👍🏼
I think Michael Jackson would absolutely reject the option to use pitch correction.
Even with pitch correction, 6 times or even a million times would never match up. It's impossible to reproduce precisely what you just sung or even said for that matter. Only by looping the same recorded phrase over and over again can it be done.
They wouldn't match up even WITH pitch correction, but they would be somewhat closer.
When Michael would record Billie Jean it could take hrs by keep re recording over and over again to he was happy with the song there’s no big deal
If we the public listened to and enjoyed Michael's music and I still do , then this guys words mean nothing to us and I for one don't want to listen to you anymore because it sounds a lot like your trying to put him down and discredit him and I don't like that .
If you haven't seen the Netflix special, you should! It's an awesome special. So glad to see that MJ was what we all thought he was - brilliant!
It got me crying at points! I loved it!
What Netflix special?
@@sunshinehoover4630 the greatest night in pop. The source of the hilarious MJ memes where he is just observing in his sunglasses while everyone else butchers the song
Professional as it can be. I love the intonation & the dynamic contrast MJ uses on the word 'are'. Then he slightly gulls back away...
They knew exactly what they wanted out of the track...
What a gentle voice he had...
Itzhak Perlman- he said he never knew anybody who could play the same thing twice the same way. He said it was because between voicings they change as a person.
Perlman was talking about interpreting the music differently each time on an emotional level. Even that is difficult. But to have it the same on the PHYSICAL level is impossible!
Another great analysis Fil. This really shows what an incredibly great singer MJ really was. It's my guess that Michael was so good of a vocalist that he would be able to hear the tiny subtle differences in each time He sang something. Then he would go back and mix and match or pick the ones he liked.
I got the chance to see MJ and his brothers perform back in the day. Stacy Lattisaw opened for them. Thanks Fil for sharing this. 😊🎸🎵
Fil, isn’t it worth mentioning that some of Michael’s contemporaries would not have bothered to sing six takes for a chorus? Not only would they let the computers create the chorus from one take, but they might fly that same performance in all over the track. Michael had a great voice and great ears. That variation in the chorus he created sounds very rich and human.
MJ was terrible live, weak voice and off key, even in ballads.
@@alnor1643 I said even ballads, so it wasn't due to the dancing.
@@alnor1643 Shows that you actually don't know a thing about it!
@@aligensa genius your voice will still be affected during ballads because of that dancing before hand. But please go off in your ignorance 😂👍. Clearly it shows you don’t know wtf you are talking about 👍. Now go watch your regurgitated music 👌
@@alnor1643 I will! For example, I will listen to EXO's "Killing Voice" session. You are clueless and are just regurgitating others' false opinions.
If they were the exact same there would have been no advantage in layerings. The subtle differences is what makes layerings sound bigger😁. But your point is to show that it is impossible to make to physical recordings look the exact same. Even analog instruments will "always" differ.
That's the point. Like at the movies different takes are needed the pick the best. So that video isn't a proof. I'm totally convinced that it isn't possible to do the same waveform twice but it would be interesting to see someone really good give it a try. Sorry Fil no offense intended! ;-)
the point of layering is that the small differences (especially in stereo) make our ears perceive it as more powerful. As when many violins in an orchestra (or voices in a choir) do the same melody in unison. Even from a purely academic, scientific point of view, it is impossible to replicate the exact same sound waves with living objects. Believe me. If it would happen within millions of small samples, it would still just be random and have nothing to do with skill
Yes: That is why Brian Wilson dubbed his lead vocals, and why Richard Carpenter layered their harmonies; no two takes are ever exactly the same.
And Fil only talked about note pitch and timing. There are many other things that cannot be reproduced, such as for example the volume/dynamics of a note and the mutual volume relationships of the note's overtones (which we interpret as tone of voice).
@@bildregie6953 Honestly, I think this is as good a try as anyone could ever possibly attempt. It's a deliberate replication in a studio environment, focusing only on two words. A person under similar laboratory conditions if they did it dozens or hundreds more times times? ... they would probably be able to get closer, for sure. However, even if it looked the same in this relatively casual pitch analysis app (just something available on your phone, not designed for studio use), we'd be able to get our hands on something that showed pitch in more detail and see all-new variations popping up and we'd have to go back to the studio to record even more.
But... why would we put a singer through this? We know that under any usual (e.g. performance) conditions, a real live performance would vary far more than this, even if they drilled themselves to be "perfect". We know that the only way to have a vocal performance that is literally the same months apart is to use a recording. Since we know many performers use recordings, this might be disappointing if you're a big fan, but it shouldn't be so unbelievable we have to see if it's possible under laboratory conditions and an infinite number of replications by a theoretically indefatigable singer singing a single phrase that's her best possible phrase in order to make absolutely sure.
The other possibility is that Don Henley (and anyone else using identical vocals) is a sophisticated android (and became one in the last 6 years). This theory is as probable as the identical performances.
Michael Jackson was an incredible vocalist.
" A vocal finger print" Sherlock Fil solves another case Da Dum Da Dum
Very interesting.
Also very interesting because michael is damn close. Very very accurate pitch wise.
He is amazingly accurate each time. He is a freak! but even he will have a different waveform on any take.
Everything you're saying Fil is awesome but even so it's amazing how pretty close and accurate MJ was here.
Great video
To my little ears, his takes all sounded exactly the same save for one towards the end that he didn't carry on with. The system shows us they are, in fact, all unique.
Hi Fil,
I loved this analysis today. And from what I understand Michael was a perfectionist. So it’s not surprising he would do six takes of a four word phrase, to capture the sound he was looking for. And this is a great example that you simply can’t sing a phrase, chorus/4 words/notes the same way every time. They will all be relatively close, but not the same. Good job on this video today. I think you really proved again you can’t sing the same thing twice the same way unless it is a recording. You Are The Best! Debbie ☮️
Michael did six takes of the WHOLE chorus. Fil just showed us the first four words so it wouldn't take forever.
The title is a little bit negative in my opinion. It doesn’t matter, nobody is as creative as Michael Jackson and he has so much talent, nobody comes close. That will never happen that’s for sure ! ❤
If he can't do that, nobody can.
💯
And of course, this is why the early Beatles double-tracked their vocals: precisely because those minor variations in pitch & timing gave a fuller sound. And the Beatles, who were great singers, were trying their damndest to sing the identical notes -- and couldn't quite get it right. Which is what makes their vocals so resonant and strong.
Michael Jackson was one in a lifetime of talent. Loved this anthem as well. All of the musicians I grew up with.
One thing about IT One would always recognize Michael's voice ❤
💯👌 exactly… so many people are good singers but they all sound the same, boring. His voice is one you recognize at the first note and that’s what makes him an artist and master vocalist.
Thanks Fil. Your videos are always fun and educational.
I'm just going to say that even though there were minuscule differences, to anyone's ears they are identical. I also doubt many singers could even get this close. i've listen to Barry Gibb and even he is out by something quite audible, but on the track, those differences thicken the vocal.
Hey Fil I truly enjoy seeing and hearing you talk about the vocal mechanics (because I figuratively DISSECT vocals as I listen to a song). The down side is that they seem to incite controversy and follow-up explanations that detract from the enjoyment (you’re not smiling in the thumbnail).
I love the analyses videos where you’re smiling the smile of true appreciation as you listen and the subsequent conversation has that same sparkle. In both cases I really enjoy your channel 👍🏻👍🏻
There are so many variables taking place for vocal singers, let’s say MJ was a perfectionist ‘cause he couldn’t be perfection. Humans can’t replicate like robots.
This was an artist spending up to an hour doing his vocal training despite knowing he was an hell of a singer. Vocal training isn’t only needed to warm up your vocal chords, but also needed to temporarily memorize how far your vocal ability can go in a certain day and be able to replicate a good performance during a studio session. So many factors play into this that it’s quite a score if you’re able to replicate 4 takes to the point they’re so close to sound the same, without running out of voice capability, without letting your voice go raspy and such.
This song in particular was pretty chill, almost like he had to stick to the script (and that isn’t really his thing. MJ was a soul artist, he would let his pain and passion bleed out and guide him during recordings so he didn’t always stick to the script, and if you add the dancing, his physical and mental stress that’s alot of stuff to keep under control). I think he did quite great being able to maintain high standards during his recording sessions even if he wasn’t really able to deliver vocals to the point of perfection.
Fun analysis again of a true legend who is greatly missed. Thanks Fil😊☀️🎤🎵🥤
Hello Fil. I love your analysis videos featuring vocal pitch accuracy in which you take an objective approach to showing how a singer’s voice won’t sound the same when he/she sings a line because it’s physiologically impossible. In some ways, it’s like saying no two fingerprints are exactly alike or no two snowflakes are exactly alike. Too bad that Michael’s life was cut short at age 50…he was immensely talented. I believe that in your analysis of his vocal abilities, including the mention of the subtle variations, you paid tribute to him. Thanks for your professional approach and insight and thanks for what you do, Fil. Cheers!
You are so right Fil.
I sang three words of a song through the vocal monitor app and each time was different!!
Thanks for your analysis!
Similar, but not exactly the same!
Interesting stuff. You should do more Michael Jackson videos. He was such a talent.
There is at least one, that I recall.
Agreed. His genius needs more magnification 👏
@@jillturner8680 We all love his music but his vocals were underrated in my opinion. Superb vocalist.
@@AM_9924 couldn't agree more! When you hear just his vocals stacked, it's really quite something.
Thank you Fil. Always learning from you! 🎭🗣
Kids can't believe he was that world famous without social media. Tried explaining monoculture and got crickets.
Well analysed Fil, you're not doing Michael down at all, its just fact. It's often when you duplicate 2 or 3 wav file 'takes' in recording you get some great phasing effects. Michael was great, shame he was controlled by handlers, but what a talent!
Great update as always Fil
Another great video Fil. Thanks for sharing.
Fil, excellent analysis! Very informative as your analysis videos always are ! Now we have Michael Jackson! Well done, Fil ! 💜
Brilliant, as always, Fil! The hair MIGHT be looking for a trim soon, but...I LOVE IT! Stay safe and sane, etc. Rosemarie ❤️❤️❤️
Thanks for your interesting analysis!
Well done, Fil. A real education on the technicalities of recording music.
Another awesome analysis. Thanks Fil❤
Your videos are very interesting! I love this analysis !! Many greets from Germany near Cologne
Jackson was an accomplished pop singer who was performing since he could barely walk. He was a perfectionist who practiced his songs, his dance moves, and his performances over and over to get them as close to the level he demanded. With all that, we can see that no singer can mimic pitch correction.
I'd say he was more than just a pop singer, those that worked with him say he was a great musician, just not in the normal sense, he would have a song in his head and hum or sing each segment and how each instrument should sound etc
Fil, you are healing my pitch "paranoias". Thank you so much!
Peg, You really know your stuff- great content!!
Another good one Fil!
Hated to miss your birthday party livestream last night
I was at the Masters Golf Tournament
As you are a golfer I hope you understand
I know your birthday rocked
Golf bores me, but, Andrew Cotter was there commentating, and I love his dogs. Olive and Mabel stayed home.
Good video! One thing I did was pause the video right after he sang all of his takes (right before your analysis) and I thought about it a bit and I did notice that the takes after the first take were just a bit sharp. He was quite consistent, though. He was known to be a perfectionist. Anyway, I enjoyed your analysis of this video very much.
From a technical standpoint, you're doing a great job of explaining the issue of the 'fingerprint' of frequency as well as temporal modulation, there are also going to be variable differences in amplitude modulation.
As you are probably aware pitch correction software can be adjusted to 'humanise' i.e.. de-correct a performance. By adding randomizations in pitch and timing it is possible to emulate a 'new' performance. Until now used mainly for audio effects, I would suspect certain individuals that forge their 'live' performances (due to the fantastic highlighting of your channel) may start to make use of this ability in a more subtle, fraudulent manner.
I freaking love these videos!
Great job Phil. Thank you for doing this. 👍. By the way you are mentioned on a couple videos exposing Don Henley. They are giving you the credit.
Always love the analysis! Can let someone that doesn’t know anything about singing understand what you are talking about!
Game, set, and match! Nicely done, FIl!
Wings of Pegasus, This made me laugh so hard, thanks for sharing!
Thank you for this great channel.
As a 'youth' having just returned to the US, I had the privilege of seeing the Jackson 5 in Baltimore! One of my 1st concerts, with mum and dad, BUT one I'll NEVER forget!! Thank you mum and dad!!
Another clear demonstration of even the greatly-touted Michael Jackson singing notes slightly different each time. 👍
i think its actually good to NOT be 100% pitch perfect, its good to have a great controll but thats enough (and he has great controll).
He's one of a handful of "pop" artists that are star rated singers so it's absolutely right he's "greatly touted". Most of today's stars are simply miles behind the technical ability etc of star rated singers, Adele is rated as a C +, Taylor Swift only a D+
@@robcmore2004 I personally have never placed Michael Jackson in the category as a superlative singer. His appeal seems to me lands in the overall entertainment arena. He has had many catchy & pretty songs, but his dancing and clothing have always overshadowed his actual singing talents in my mind.
@123Rockchild each to their own, I must confess that many "greats" like Cash and Dylan sounded horrendous to me so it's mostly personal taste
@@robcmore2004 I can agree with you on that! 😁
Thank you Fil. You're a great defender of honest musicians.
Awesome analysis. When you played through the first time i made a mental note that i thought 1 & 2 were extremely close and that take 5 was the only one i could hear a difference but i heard it on "world", the last word that wasn't part of it. heh
A very clear and obvious ilustration. He does sound the same each time but it actually vairies, however slightly. Proof indeed. Our ears just aren't sensitive enough to pick up those minute details.
Nice analysis! I wonder how they decided which vocal to take…assuming that such accurate pitch monitoring system was not available back then, and even if it was, analyzing the chorus would be a nightmare. I suppose they just relied on their ears, but then again even the best ears probably cannot resolve all of these takes.
You started using this a lot when you were resting your wrist and I said that I thought you were using it too much. My sincere apologies. I have it on my phone and use it (very occasionaly) when I want to check my singing. But I'm not using it to learn to "sing to the lines" I just want to have a sound in my head. My piano teacher has never made a remark when I sing a song before I play it. He doesn't care it it's pitch perfect or not, he just wants me to start.
I went through my music "education" with every choir teacher telling me to move my lips and not make a sound. Now, I'm making a sound.
Merci, a follower from when you had 13,000 subs.
Fil, always great content. Apologies for asking a related question but as it applies to guitar vs vocals. Since you are also a guitarist, have you ever used your pitch analysis app to analyze a guitar solo? Have wondered how well it might work, especially in analyzing a guitarist's technique such as vibrato speed, depth, uniformity, bends, etc..
Seems like the app could be useful for the detail-oriented guitarist similar to a vocalist focusing on developing certain style techniques....?
Thx in advance if a reply is possible!
I am rather new to you, and am very much enjoying these vocal analyzes. Would you please consider looking at Mandy Patinkin's performance of Over the Rainbow? There are several live versions from which to choose
@WingsofPegasus-in my opinion with all the years of video analyses and this video as your culminating thesis, one of these six universities should be granting you an Honorary Doctorate in Vocal Analysis & Production. Rock!
1) The Juilliard School-New York, NY
2) Berklee College of Music - Boston, MA
3) University of Southern California-Los Ángeles, CA
4) Northwestern University-Evanston, IL
5) University of Miami- Coral Gables, FL
6) Royal Academy of Music- London, England
Number #5 provides a purpose for a Florida visit. Number #6 is close to home. 🤘🏼🎸🎵🏴
AGREE!
I have never studied music theory. I can't read music. I don't play an instrument yet I understand the point you were trying to make, clearly. I have never had a problem understanding you. Thank you very much for your continued integrity and generously sharing your expertise for you have taught me so much.. I appreciate you.
Loved this! I appreciate singing that is real and pure like this. No auto tuning for me! 😊
So interesting! Thanks for that!
I so appreciate what you do! Thank You!
Here we go!
Great video-very interesting to see the differences because 8 couldn't hear the difference!
Thank you for your video. I've learned something new.
Thanks for the explanation.
IMHO what a fascinating analyst of something almost completely meaningless.
Another good analysis.
When I listen to the first time you played it and mentioned first second third fourth fifth and sixth, I guessed that the first and the six were identical. It’s interesting to see the slight differences but I didn’t think to through five sounded anything like the first. I know that they were in a rush to get this completed because no one knew who was going to show up for this topic and they coordinated this whole effort during the The stresses of an award show where no one that participated in this joint effort knew that each other was going to be present until the recording
I actually watched this rehearsal and MJ sang his part several times. Some people in the comments about why he was able to practice his part so many times. Knowing the way Michael works, it had to be perfect or very close to
lol because it was his song and Lionel’s, people choose to be dumb 😂
You can't touch MJ. The fact that you had to use software, to detect whatever you want to prove, says it all.
Why are you taking this as an attack? The last thing you want in music is for every performance to be EXACTLY the same.
@@Biozene It is presented as an insult, hence the atack.
Grow up
@@d-rzarkocubrinoski It's not an insult, he's demonstrating the physiological impossiblity of anyone being able to duplicate the way they sing anything. Nothing at all to do with artistic/techical ability. Too lazy to watch? He literally refers to him as "A great singer, really accurate pitchwise..."
@@leojbramble You don't understand the intention, so buzz off.
Love this video. I’m an avid MJ fan but for someone who sang a LOT from the years of 1969 to 1997; his voice couldn’t always remain the same.
of course it wasn't the same. he wasn't feeling or thinking the same thing each time. Amen. love you.
Hi. On the Don example, he’ll probably instruct his technical guys to create 20 slightly different recordings and rotate through them live. 😀
Fil, off topic and not a song you would normally cover but Townes Van Zandt has a song called Pancho and Lefty that if like you to check out. I’m just a drummer so I don’t have the ability to articulate what is so special and original about the key changes and composition, maybe you could do a video on it. It’s been performed by a LOT of people.
@prongATO
That fiddle really does it for me! ❤
Fil,
I’m by no means suggesting that Michael could sing the same lines or even 2 notes twice that are exactly the same.
however, perhaps Michael was giving the producer options? Rather like actors when they do takes in a movie!
just a thought.
Thanks Fil
Your analysis makes me wonder how hard double tracking is. I don’t t mean a cut ‘n paste second track but a second entire take.
Of course no one can have an absolute perfect frequency repeatition - that's common sense
Can you do Gene Pitney - somethings got a hold of my heart, new subscriber so sorry if you have already done this one
It's interesting that the longer straight lines do match. Maybe be variable in length but angle pretty much perfectly matching
Was a great video
Fil, your review of Tori Holub was fantastic. I've recently found out about Harriet doing Carpenters covers on TicTok. I've seen her videos but the video doesn't seem to sync to the music. Could you do a pitch monitoring analysis on her? Either way, she still seems to be a good singer.
I'm convinced. Singers can "nail the vocal," but they can't nail the fine details.
I'd be interested in voice impressionists like Rich Little. I know he used to sing like famous singers but how close was he to the voice he was imitating? Thanks, Fil. Another great video and analysis.
There is a lot more to that than just pitch wave forms, in the manner Fill is looking at them. Kind of like when a woman and a man sings the same note, it doesn't sound the same, or even moreso, when you play it on a tympani or trumpet.
I love science. Thanks so much for showing the impossibility of singing the same song or words exactly over and over again. It is an impossibility when you consider the physics of the human vocal cords and sound. Well done!!!
Thank you!❤
Thanks, Fil 🙂
good vid. there came a point in recording history where producers/engineers realized they could COPY/PASTE a chorus from the first part of a song to all other ones to keep the chorus identical so they'd focus on getting ONE good chorus - that's it, then paste all those vocals to the later parts of the song AS LONG AS the tempo of the song was set via click track so that the tempo did not waver (increase or decrease) and that's how they do it today. Just get one GREAT take of the chorus, paste it in for all other ones (as long as you are happy it is a clone). Then you can KIND OF mask it with another track of lead vocal ad libs at the end to vary things up. They did that with Nirvana's smells like teen spirit. same vocals every chorus. Tons of pop songs now do that. But back in the 70s, 80s... not so much. Michael had to sing things over and over. I'm sure Quincy COULD HAVE done a bounce and just got one good one but I think for him that probably seemed like cheating and anyway MJ was a great singer so he could sing it great on every take so no biggie. Vocal fingerprint. It's also the same for anything really. You could write your name in cursive twice in a row and they won't be identical. Those tiny little shakes in the hand will happen at different times, places, amplitudes.... vocals will NEVER match identically unless it's a digital copy of a prev one.
You are amazing, Grammy here.
I was painting my living walls with a brush today and thought about Fil's videos. You can't paint brush strokes over a wall the same way you brushed it the last time! Just like you can't sing something "live" today exactly the same way you recorded it years earlier.