Talk:Backmasking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents 1 Daft Punk 2 Removed sponge bob 3 Slayer 4 Darkthrone 5 "Satanic and violent messages" 6 Led Zeppelin 7 "Most famously Amy Grant" 8 Any science backing this? 9 I made a song with a backmasked message. 10 What is the problem with this bit? 11 Zappa message 12 Boards of Canada link 13 Eminem 14 "Under the influence of Cannabis"... 15 Sentence reading "Other artists accused of backmasking" needs sources/citations 16 POV & OR tags 17 Good article nominee? 18 Doubtful this is a B Class Mid importance article 19 Backmaskonline.com vs WP:EL 20 Backmasking as censorship

[edit] Daft Punk

just curious if this is good enough to be in the article, there are many articles and sites that reveal the oddity of the song "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" Backmasked, would the song qualify as a good enough song to be backmasked

No - it's not really backmasked. If you listen to the song backwards, those lyrics are inaudible. Can you hear the words without looking at the screen? Λυδαcιτγ 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sponge bob

I removed the following tidbit from the 'hidden message' header 'Another back message can be heard in the theme song to spongebob squarepants. When played backwards the song becomes slightly perverted as the main line is "Aunt pearls, small blouse".' 129.97.18.161 06:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slayer

To answer a question about an edit I made, Satanic backmasking rumors were well over a decade old before Slayer became prominent. (Led Zeppelin, ELO, etc.) St. Jimmy 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but the relevant section of the article is about actual backmasking, not rumors. See if you like the wording I used. TheJabberwʘck 02:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That works for me! St. Jimmy 02:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkthrone

I have never heard about Darkthrone using backmasking, it makes me even more skeptical due to the fact that they are so overtly anti-christian they don't need to use backmasked messages and also the fact that they use so little production and are against production as a whole that even the process of backmasking is too technical for them. I would like someone to get a decent source/sound sample or I'm going to delete the reference. I'm not going to be reversing my copys of the album just to find out. Even if its true I don't think it is necessary to be included in this artical due to the previously stated anti-christian views of the band. --Xdiabolicalx 01:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a forum page with sound samples. The page for Transilvanian Hunger also contains a reference to the message; I'm inclined to think it's true. Λυδαcιτγ 02:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I can hear it now. Does simply reversing the voice count as back masking though? It seems alot less complicated than what Zepplin and others were accused of. --Xdiabolicalx 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does count as backmasking. That's basically what Zeppelin was accused of. One of the reasons why I don't think the Zeppelin accusations are true is that the "voices" are so hard to hear - if they wanted kids to hear messages in their songs, why would they make them so hard to hear? Λυδαcιτγ 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Satanic and violent messages"

This section is extremely POV, it reads like a rant about satanic messages, also it doesnt site references and several of the alleged satanic messages are rididculous (particularly the pokemon one)

OK, why don't you help clean it up? I'll work on it as well. Λυδαcιτγ 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Λυδαcιτγ 02:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This section's still not right. 1. I think attention should be drawn to the fact that satanic themes are a large part of Cradle of Filth's image and general lyrical content, as with many other similar bands, and that backmasking 'satanic messages' into their songs is a creative extension of these themes. 2. One should not categorize a backmasked message as 'clearly deliberately satanic' unless one is certain(ie. some citation please). How can you be sure these messages weren't parodies? They may have been executed in a serious tone, but how can you determine the reasoning behind their inclusion in a song? Best to put these under 'alleged satanic messages', as you'll never know for sure without confirmation from the artists themselves. 3. What happened to artistic license anyway? Music is a fiction, and should not be seen as a declaration of the artist's beliefs or opinions. If I write a novel about a murderer, does that mean I advocate murder? Does it make me a murderer? 86.129.54.139 06:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Better? Λυδαcιτγ 17:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin

My research started when I was looking up meanings for certain songs, like Hotel California (The Eagles), and then I looked up Stairway to Heaven. At the start, they're talking about a prostitute, but I wanted to see if there were a story to the song, like what Pink Floyd had done with his most famous album "The Wall." I was looking around on the Internet about backmasking, and I had seen some rumors floating around, and so I had done some experimenting. Though they may not have meant for the lyrics to come out the way they did backwards (which would be very, very hard to do by accident, as I had tried doing the vocals myself to see what would show up, and I could only hear the word "Satan." The backwards section is in the lyrics "If there's a bustle in your hedgerow don't be alarmed now. It's just a spring clean for the May Queen. Yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run; there's still time to change the road you're on." Play it backwards and you really can hear about "sweet Satan." I made an mp3 section of that part, then I had reversed the part and saved it, and you can hear it, you have to listen to hear the beginning, but the lyrics are there. You can download the forwards section at http://rapidshare.de/files/23589828/Forwards.rar.html and download the reverse section at http://rapidshare.de/files/23589879/Backwards.rar.html. If you have any questions on what I have printed, please contact me at aaronarmstrong13@hotmail.com. And I am not ranting on about Satanic messages. This is what backmasking had for Zeppelin's song. Though Robert Plant claims to have written the lyrics "next to an open fire" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairway_to_Heaven), the track still speaks volumes backwards.

Thanks, Aaron. As I said on your talk page, most of that info is best suited to "Stairway to Heaven". Λυδαcιτγ 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Most famously Amy Grant"

Is there a source for this? I can't find anything, and List of backmasked messages doesn't list her. --Kapow 06:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked the writer of that part (it was written back in 2003!). I'd like to keep the info, since it's both funny and illuminating. Λυδαcιτγ 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But is it true? That sections mentions law-suits, so there should be a public record if this is true. Jayvdb 06:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. If anyone has access to Lexis-Nexis, for example, the case should be easy to find. For now I've moved the bold part here:

It is worth noting that, given a randomly generated series of syllables spoken in a variety of accents, a two-syllable pair that can be liberally interpreted as "Satan" is very easy to generate. Therefore, any individual with a small amount of creative interpretation skills could play virtually any song with vocals backwards and uncover "Satanic messages". This fact has been exploited by defense attorneys in "backwards messaging" court cases, who often disprove allegations by "uncovering Satanic messages" in songs by Christian artists, most famously Amy Grant.

Λυδαcιτγ 23:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any science backing this?

The whole idea that running a message backwards would be comprehensible on even a subconsious level is a little difficult for me to get. Has there ever been any study about whether backwards messages can have a subliminal effect akin to that of, say, hypnosis? Or whether they can even be understood if, I don't know, repeated over and over? --Lenoxus 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only seen pseudoscience, at best (example). I think that the failure of the Judas Priest lawsuit indicates that there is no hard evidence of that effect. Λυδαcιτγ 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no science backing that people can perceive the message backwards; however, certainly some artists, (Tally Hall) have deliberately added backmasking to songs, obviously for artistic effect and not for the intention of subconscious control. If the backmasking is obvious enough, people can easily tell that the track IS backmasked, though they won't be able to understand what it means.

Thanks for responding. I guess, to rephrase my confusion, I have little more to express than my own awe that someone "thought of" this idea in the first place; to me, it's like saying that a message printed on the reverse side of an opaque sheet of paper will have a subliminal effect, because it seems humans are just as capable of reading that as they are of "listening backwards." --Lenoxus

While not wanting to give too much credibility to the subconscious influence theory, I wonder - why wouldn't a transparent or translucent piece of paper be a better metaphor? Λυδαcιτγ 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it would. What still makes a "wall" for me (hence the "opacity") is the element of time. After all, it's not that hard to train yourself to read something backwards, even at the exact same rate as one reads forward, because the direction of reading is naturally arbitrary. But to "listen backwards" would require the memorization not only of phonetic sounds in addition to a kind of intrinsic understanding of the fact that imperfect articulation/recording means that a "perfect reverse" isn't the same as the "real thing", and varies considerably from one speaker/accent/etc to the next. --Lenoxus 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But why do you assume the backwards sounds would have to be memorized? Couldn't your brain reverse them while listening, just as it would reverse the words in a book read in a mirror, despite having never seen the letters written backwards before? Λυδαcιτγ 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an interesting counter-point... this is starting to look like a discussion for another forum; what do you suggest? --Lenoxus 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll copy everything from here on up to my talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 04:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I made a song with a backmasked message.

There's this one lullaby parody I did called "Cold One". It is a parody of the track "Little One" from Sandra Boynton's "Rhinoceros Tap". Anyway, after you hear "Ever could be" for the first time, I put in a message. when played backwards, you hear Kagura from Azumanga Daioh discussing stuff about tits.

[edit] What is the problem with this bit?

"An example in less hardcore culture was the controversy over the theme tune of the popular childrens' television anime Pokémon. It is alleged that the words "Gotta catch 'em all", when played backwards, say "I love Satan" or "Oh, Satan"^[1]." It is even credited with the same source as others here. Trencacloscas 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not true - it doesn't even sound faintly like "I love Satan". Λυδαcιτγ 14:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zappa message

The backmasked Zappa message is actually censored in the actual audio. I assume you hear "feeping" instead of "fucking", or maybe "f-[silence]-ing" - does anyone know? Λυδαcιτγ 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boards of Canada link

The mp3 link to the Boards of Canada song in the Artistic Backmasking section did not work. It was either replaced by spam or it linked to a very spammish site that needed some sort of login to listen to the mp3. Either way, it wasn't doing anything for the article in that condition.

I suggest some one find the recording and make a proper link to it.

The main page is dead - the "lease" probably expired. I linked to the archive.org version. Λυδαcιτγ 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem

Perhaps a reference to Eminem's song? "My Name Is" FOREWARD: Hi, My name is.. (what?) My name is.. (who?) REVERSED: It is Slim.. It's Eminem, it's Eminem, It's Eminem. Perhaps not? Don't know if it was intentional, but it sounds very convincing phocks 05:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional - see http://www.backmaskonline.com/mp3.html. It's vaguely audible, but obviously a coincidence when you compare it to the ones that are listed as intentional. Λυδαcιτγ 06:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Under the influence of Cannabis"...

I'm taking out the part about John Lennon being "Under the influence of Cannabis" because it's retarded. Anybody who's actually smoked pot knows that it isn't some kind of freaky psychedelic mind-altering trip or something. So stating anything about somebody doing something "Under the influence of cannabis" is stupid. If you wanted to say that he was stoned and he thought it sounded cool, that's fine. But "Under the influence" makes it sound like there's some major perception altering going on when there isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.214.139.81 (talk • contribs).

Well, although I agree that there probably wasn't any major perception altering, I wouldn't be surprised if the pot had something to do with Lennon's discovery. What do you think of this: "Lennon, who at the time was high on cannabis, ..." -Audacity 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget that a drug needn't be mind-altering in order to have some influence on neural activity — even caffience can "influence" creativity to some extent. --Lenoxus 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence reading "Other artists accused of backmasking" needs sources/citations

Sentence reading "Other artists accused of backmasking" needs sources/citations. Otherwise, it should be deleted as an unsourced statement that is potentially libelous. Ronbo76 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Audacity 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously question references 14, 15 and 16 as not meeting WP:EL. #14 links up to a site that is entitled "essay". #15 says it is excerpted and in caps "SOME INFO MAY BE OUTDATED OR FLAT OUT WRONG". #16 appears to a site that is self-posted along with user comments. None of these meet the intent of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The Portugeese site I will have translated by a friend. Ronbo76 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

. In terms of the specific sites, though:

• Yes, #14 is an essay, but it's well-referenced and credible to my eyes.
• The woman who typed up #15 states that some info might be outdated/wrong because the book was published in 1983. Some of it may be outdated, but for our purposes the age of the book just means that the claims were made prior to 1983.
• Number 16 is user-posted, and lacks references. But we don't have to believe that a secret message exists to believe that the author is documenting a well-known claim.

Keep in mind that these references are being used simply to justify the claim that accusations have been made against these artists. -Audacity 05:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While this is not a bio article, this is potentially a libelous claim that is contra WP:BLP. I will ask for a review. Ronbo76 05:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. For anyone who is interested, the request is here. -Audacity 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't begun to look at this part yet, but if the citations are as bad as the Satanic and violent messages section, then I don't have much hope for them. CovenantD 04:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at them now.

This one is in a foreign language. If the controversy about the Eagles is that notable, an source in English should be easy to find. If it can't, then it's not notable enough for inclusion.

This citation I would allow. The author has published books in a related field (kinda) and seems to be credible. Citing the actual book he refers to would be much better.

{{cite book|last=Poundstone|first=William|title=Big Secrets|date=1983|publisher=William Morrow and Company|location=[[New York City]]|id=ISBN 0-688-04830-7|url=http://www.crispen.org/rants/secrets.html|accessdate=2006-08-23}} This one is misleading. The link goes to a personal family website that has personal commentary intertwined, making it effectively useless as a source. Same problem as above; use of somebody else to relate what's in the book.

The Britney Spears article recounts what appears to be Original Research by somebody with a website. I couldn't find anything that would lead me to believe that this author has any credentials that would qualify him to perform this kind of analysis.

The Rush article, on the other hand, is by an internet media outlet that has some notability in the music field. I'd allow this one.

• Hope this helps. CovenantD 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"This kind of analysis" - what kind of analysis? Surely you don't mean that a widespread accusation of backmasking suggests that the accusation is supported by a reliable analysis? Λυδαcιτγ 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"This kind of analysis" = interpreting the words that may or may not exist in music played backwards. Check out WP:RS for more info. CovenantD 22:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that whether or not this guy is qualified to interpret the existence of the message doesn't matter. His site is being used to justify the claim that claims were made against Britney. Λυδαcιτγ 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It does matter. He isn't just relating that somebody else has accused Spears, he's making the accusation himself. If he's setting himself up to interpret, then there has to be level of expertise in order for it to be a reliable source. To give an anology, I could create a website that says the Benedictine Monks were really advocating child abuse. That wouldn't make it a reliable source. I see nothing that makes this any different. CovenantD 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur with user:CovenantD. Today's URL citation caught my attention while on RC Patrol. It seems to be another casual reference to someone who claims that backmasking exists. It is not an authorative source that would be considered hard-hitting journalism. Morenooso 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, here is the factual claim that I am making: Britney Spears has been accused of backmasking. If I find a site that accuses Britney of backmasking, that supports my claim. It doesn't matter if the author is a total idiot, a liar, or an unreliable source in other ways. His website is being used as a primary source, and reliability is not at issue. Λυδαcιτγ 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What we are trying to tell you is YES, it does matter. Poorly sourced claims or allegations are just that. As CovenantD said, an accusation built upon a self-built website, or, in your case just trying to find someone who has claimed this has happened is similar to building a house upon a deck of cards. Eventually it will fall. Recommend deletion of poorly sourced citations. Morenooso 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my intent. I don't want to say that Britney Spears used backmasking. If anything, I think the fact that she is listed should indicate how ridiculous the claims are. All I'm using this as is an indication that the claims made about her exist. I'm not sure exactly what the "house" in your analogy would be.

Anyway, I've got a couple of other sources for y'all: [1] [2]. What think you? Λυδαcιτγ 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those yet, but regarding this edit; much better. You've nicely tied in the accusations and the Milner link. Being mentioned in the WSJ gives him a credibility that his blog alone lacks. (The wording needs tightening up, but that's minor.) I'd suggest adjusting the Spears reference as well, if you haven't found something else already, since the WSJ link mentions her rather prominently. CovenantD 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looked at the new sources. The first one, No. Songfacts is user edits, which means we have no way of knowing if the information comes from a reliable source. The second one, it depends on the context. What part are you using? CovenantD 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Only the comments at Songfacts are user-edited; the facts themselves are posted by admins, although they are sometimes pointed out by users (as in this case). See [3]).

The second:

Something which is much more likely to cheer me up is taking the mickey out of vapid celebrities. Step forward ebaumsworld.com's expose of Britney Spears's subliminal messages. The site claims that if you play a snippet of "Baby one more time" backwards then it sounds like la Spears is singing: "Sleep with me, I'm not too young."
I have no idea if this is true or not but given the sexual imagery used to market her music, you never know.

Λυδαcιτγ 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Songfacts - I read that about sources, and I also looked the entry itself. Unfortunately they don't say which "books, magazines, newspaper articles, reference materials and interviews" they relied on, so we have no way of verifying their information. Couple that with the direct thanks to a reader and it crosses the threshold of reliability.

Scotsman - Since the Scotsman website so conveniently provides a link to their source[4], I checked out eBaum's World. I direct your attention to this[5] coverage of them in Wired Magazine.

I understand the desire to find different sources, but neither of these two have the aura of respectability that the WSJ does. CovenantD 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV & OR tags

Somebody wanted me to detail why I added the tag, so...

"Much of the controversy over backmasking is a result of Satanic messages in heavy metal music." Uncited, POV statement

"Slayer's 1985 album Hell Awaits is a prominent example of hidden Satanic messages in music." Satanic is POV

"The album starts with a demonic-sounding voice..." POV

"The Cradle of Filth song "Dinner at Deviants Palace" consists almost entirely of ambient sounds and a reversed reading of the Lord's Prayer<ref>{{cite web|title=Jeff Milner dot Com: 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004|last=Milner|first=Jeff|url=http://jeffmilner.com/index.php/2004/09/01/more-backmasking-songs/|accessdate=2006-06-20}}</ref>" The source is a blog

"(being able to say the Lord's Prayer backwards was perceived in the Middle Ages as a sign of being a witch)" Uncited

"Another lesser-known example is in the Alan Parsons Project..." Uncited, looks like Original Research

"Some of the controversy deals with songs that are not necessarily Satanic, but simply anti-Christian. Original Research

"Black metal band Darkthrone's Transilvanian Hunger album contains, when listened to backwards, "In the name of God, let the churches burn"<ref>{{cite web|title=Encyclopaedia Metallum - Darkthrone - Transilvanian Hunger|url=http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:aAWTH95kxPwJ:metal-archives.com/release.php%3Fid%3D624|accessdate=2006-06-16}}</ref>." The citation is a Google search result that returns no matches

"Death rock group Christian Death's song "Mysterium Iniquitatis" is sung almost entirely backwards, and when reversed, expresses atheistic beliefs." Uncited, probable Original Research and POV

The entire last paragraph is uncited.

That accounts for the ENTIRE SECTION. Better find some sources quickly or I'm going to remove the entire section. And then I'll look at the rest of the article. CovenantD 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Any further objections? Λυδαcιτγ 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, I've covered every sentence in the entire section; are you asking me to comment on a different section? Once you've rewritten this part we'll see how well it covers the topic. CovenantD 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I already rewrote it... Here it is for your reference:

In contrast to the controversial alleged Satanic messages, certain backmasked messages are clearly deliberately Satanic or violent. Slayer's 1985 album Hell Awaits begins with a demonic-sounding voice that, when played backwards, urges "Join Us" over and over at increasing volumes^[2]. The Cradle of Filth song "Dinner at Deviants Palace" consists almost entirely of ambient sounds and a reversed reading of the Lord's Prayer^[3] (backwards readings of the Lord's Prayer are used in certain demonic rites^[4][5]).
Black metal band Darkthrone's Transilvanian Hunger album contains a message that is not necessarily Satanic, but simply anti-Christian. The track "As Flittermice As Satan's Spies" contains, when listened to backwards, "In the name of God, let the churches burn".^[6]

1. ^ Milner, Jeff. Jeff Milner's Backmasking Site. Retrieved on 2006-06-16.
2. ^ Did You Know?. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.
3. ^ Milner, Jeff. Jeff Milner dot Com: 09/01/2004 - 09/30/2004. Retrieved on 2006-06-20.
4. ^ http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/bgoat/rituals/LPBackwards.html
5. ^ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/religions/satanism/faqcrt/
6. ^ Darkthrone Biography/Discography. Retrieved on 2007-02-02.

Λυδαcιτγ 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't touched this one yet because I'm still having lot's of problems with it. For every layer I peel back, there's another underlying layer that requires more thought and research. I haven't forgotten about it. CovenantD 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

These messages aren't "clearly satanic or violent", they're entirely coincidental. I think the way this is worded needs to be seriously rethought; as it stands this looks like the sort of thing Conservapedia would be abundant with. Rubberkeith 17:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Ronbo76 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That they are "entirely coincidental" is not true. If you read the article, there is a clear divide between the alleged messages — which I am pretty sure are coincidence, but which NPOV prevents us from classifying as such — and the deliberate messages, which should all be real backmasking. If you go to the List of backmasked messages, you can hear /sat"Satan Spawn, the Caco-Daemon" backwards, and it's clearly intentional. The "Dinner at Deviants Palace" message is also clearly intentional, and can be heard here. As for "Hell Awaits", I don't remember if I've listened to it myself, but it is cited in sites like this one, which clearly have no "conservative" agenda. Λυδαcιτγ 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but unless admitted by the recording artist in question, or by the label representing them, there is no actual proof that they are clearly intentional; they could easily be false positives. Anyway, the sites the citations link to seem to be unofficial and are merely pointing out the perceived words in the backmasking – not proving they were intentional at all. To say they are clearly intentional without confirmation from a reliable source does tip the neutrality a bit. Rubberkeith 09:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit that the sources don't necessarily confirm the artists' intention to create a backwards message. But I'm certain that "Dinner at Deviant's Palace" and "Satan Spawn, the Caco-Daemon" are not false positives. The messages are gibberish forwards, and it is not plausible that a band would include random gibberish in a song that would somehow turn into a clearly audible message when played backwards. Here's a quote from a good source:

[Intentional backward masking] can only be done intentionally -- by design. It first appeared in the late 1960s as a result of an accidental tape mixing error by John Lennon in the Beatles' song "Rain." He liked it and left it in. It is easy to recognize: when the music is played normally, one hears a passage that sounds like gibberish -- vaguely word-like, as if it is in a foreign language. Played backwards, clear, understandable phrase or sentence is heard.

So though the particular sites may only confirm the existence of a clear message, we can assume that any clear message is deliberate backmasking. Λυδαcιτγ 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominee?

Serious questions remain IMHO about the allegations put forth in this article. I do not believe it is a Good Article status. Ronbo76 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were no longer objecting to the wording. But please state your continued objections. Λυδαcιτγ 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

They remain the same as per my posts to this talkpage. I would not recommend this article as Good Article candidate as it enjoys no project tags. Ronbo76 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought I had addressed your posts with my replies; please make your specific objections clear again. Anyway, I de-nominated it, so don't worry about it becoming a GA in the current form. As for the project tags, I'll add the Rational Skepticism tag. I didn't see a tag at the WikiProject Music page. Λυδαcιτγ 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Number one - please see WP:OWN. Number two - Wikipedia:No original research. Ronbo76 02:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if I'm being possessive. Where is the original research? Λυδαcιτγ 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronbo, do me a favor and just tell me what specifically you want changed, because I honestly cannot figure it out. Λυδαcιτγ 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have spelled it out in each post but you seem to blow them off. You really need to read WP:OWN and the link to original research. Otherwise, the elephant in the room remains. Ronbo76 01:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As if I haven't read them... I've asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion; perhaps someone else will be able to figure out what you're looking for. Λυδαcιτγ 02:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to request for third opinion). This article is filled with poor sources and very poor use of sources. For example, the statement about John Lennon being high on cannabis is a very poor use of sources. They say no such thing in reference to the song it is connected with in the article. It is mentioned for the song "Rain", but someone's Geocities site is not a reliable source. The "Satanic message" section is very problematic. Its sources are a fan site, an obviously biased site that promotes some "fringe" (to be polite) ideas[6], the Angelfire page of a small internet group and a Usenet FAQ. These are hardly reliable sources. This article needs serious work. Before anything else it needs to be heavily fact-checked and the sources need to be reviewed in-depth. Vassyana 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This opinion is inline with section 15 (Sentence reading "Other artists accused of backmasking" needs sources/citations), where two other editors besides myself expressed reservations about sources not meeting WP:EL, and section 16 (POV & OR tags) where CovenantD placed an original research and POV tags.

A cleanup tag and original research tags will now be placed on the entire article. Poorly sourced or sources not meeting WP:EL will be deleted within two days. Also, while I will not directly visit the talkpages of the other two editors to solicit their opinions, I will with my edit summary ask them to "chime in". Ronbo76 12:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Vassyana. I had the same concerns and expressed them. Morenooso 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. The underlying problem is that there is little scholarly material on deliberate backmasking (in contrast, a fair amount has been written about the alleged backmasking involved in the Judas Priest and other controversies), which leads to a dilemma between ignoring various interesting and relevant messages which are out there, or using less-than-superb references to document these messages. I have generally taken the second approach, because, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Anyway, see if the new sources for the Lennon and Satanic sections meet your approval. Λυδαcιτγ 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Using less-than-superb references and ignoring Wikipedian rules is why this is original research. WP:Attribution is official policy (their bolding not mine). As per the original question about this article being a Good Article candidate, it fails because it does not improve Wikipedia. Ronbo76 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research; I'm not discovering these messages. It's "unreliable" sources, some of which are truly unreliable (like a couple of the ones I replaced), and some of which are only unreliable according to Wikipedia:Attribution.

What doesn't improve Wikipedia — this article? I find that hard to believe.

Anyway, I'd appreciate more challenges to my specific sources, as they do force me to do the work to find better ones. Λυδαcιτγ 05:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a great many books and news articles that have been written over the years about this topic. There is no need for unreliable internet sources. I'd suggest tagging the article and purging information that cannot be sourced within a week. If sources can be found at a later date, the history preserves the information for reference. Wikipedia aims to provide a reliable encyclopedia. This cannot be done with articles heavily reliant on improper sources. Try Google Books and Google Scholar to get you started. However, those are no replacement for a good library trip. Vassyana 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly some published work dealing with actual messages, but I would be willing to bet that no book describes the Slayer message. They seem to focus on the same messages, from the same time periods. So I'm not sure if I agree that there's no need for unreliable (in some ways, at least) internet sources. But you are certainly right that a good book would beef up the article. Λυδαcιτγ 20:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup will commence in one day as per the message posted after the Request for Third Opinion. Links not meeting WP:EL will be reverted. WP:ATT is not optional.

[edit] Doubtful this is a B Class Mid importance article

Rating an article in the B Class is to help those editors working on the creation of the Wikipedia's first CD-ROM release. Articles of Mid to Top importance, for example, would probably include most of the topics found in the one-volume 51,000 article Columbia Encyclopedia. I sincerely doubt this article should rated so high. Another example of WP:OWN. Ronbo76 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the B-class, the Mid importance, or both? For the B-class, I do believe that the article has "a majority of the material needed for a completed article", and is useful to many readers. I don't believe the article needs to be expanded, so it's not a Start-class article. In terms of the class, I believe that most people have heard of backwards messages in records, as just about everyone I've asked about the subject has known about something, whether it be the Stairway to Heaven message or the Judas Priest trial. Λυδαcιτγ 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backmaskonline.com vs WP:EL

Direct quote from their site in the "About Us" section:

The third category of audio is ones that we aren't entirely sure about.

Site looks like is self-posted edits and does not meet the intents of WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:NOT. Ronbo76 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Useage of jefitoblog.com/blog definitely does not meet what should be linked as per WP:EL. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

While I disagree with the policy, I must admit that you are correct in your interpretation. If you feel that removing the link will make this a better article, go ahead. Λυδαcιτγ 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I now expect you to remove them. You are aware of policy and should not be using links like this. Ronbo76 04:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that removing this link would worsen the article. The blog in question is well-written and informative. If I were reading the article for the first time and intrigued by the Slayer message, the link would prove useful. I do not see the harm in linking to this blog. I will not add more such links — I added this one without knowledge of the prohibition on blogs — but neither will I remove this one. Λυδαcιτγ 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't let your feelings get in the way because that is what is causing original research. The policy for blogs was laid out in WP:EL. Here it is specifically:

Links normally to be avoided

I can quote it in my posts and yet it is overlooked in favor of feelings. Ronbo76 04:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I understand the policy, and I know it mandates removing that link (though this has nothing to do with original research — I ain't the one discovering messages in Slayer songs). But I disagree with the policy's strict interpretation, and I refuse to apply the policy in this case, where I believe it would hurt the article. Λυδαcιτγ 05:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The third category are the songs whose spoiler says "UNKNOWN", and I'm not planning on calling any of them deliberate; the deliberate ones are "INTENTIONAL". "Self-posted"? The messages are posted by the editors of the site. Λυδαcιτγ 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem as per that page is it is their interpretation under their quasi Legal dodge. They provide no hard and fast citations to reliable sources as per WP:Attribution. Ronbo76 04:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree. My guess is that Dean Corbin gets messages about backmasking, investigates, and posts the results. So the site qualifies as a "self-published source", and is not reliable according to Wikipedia:Attribution. And yet, Corbin is reliable; his analysis has been correct in every instance I have checked out. So I don't see why we must treat the site as unreliable when it is actually reliable. Again, "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them". Λυδαcιτγ 04:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur w/ the Third Opinion and the need for clean-up.Morenooso 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommend all links not meeting WP:EL be replaced with citation requested. Poorly sourced/re-sourced citation requests to be removed in one week. Ronbo76 15:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Morenooso 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backmasking as censorship

Backmasking is often used to censor words and phrases deemed as inappropriate on radio edits and edited album releases.[citation needed] This practice is most often applied in rap music. One particularly common example involves the word "shit" being backmasked to sound like "ish". As a result, "ish" has become a euphemism for "shit". An example of backmasking used as censorship is on the album, "Better Dayz" by 2pac, where all profanity, drug references, violence, and even names of certain rappers are backmasked.

ill try to find a citation for this as i think it is important then can be added to the main article -- Supreme euphanasia 07:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)