Talk:Backmasking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Backmasking is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2007.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Audacity (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[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] Tenacious D

In the song "Karate" there is a small section set apart at the end which is obviously backmasked. After reversing it with WavePad, it clearly says "Donkey crap."

It's an incredibly clear and easy to find example of blackmasking. Perhaps it would fit well into the parody section.

It's in the list. I think it's better for the main article to use "classic" examples of backmasking when possible. Λυδαcιτγ 03:55, 4 July 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)

Talk about grasping at straws.

[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] 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)

I believe these objections have been addressed, so I took out the tags on this section. Λυδαcιτγ 23:54, 16 April 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)
I somehow missed that Wikipedia:External links is a guideline, not a policy, and is superseded by Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. The blog entry is more of a web page than a blog. It is well-written and credible, and there is no reason to exclude it. Λυδαcιτγ 01:23, 17 April 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)
I will begin the cleanup within two days. Morenooso 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Though I hate to question this orgy of righteous deadline-setting, it's been almost a week and two weeks respectively, and I haven't seen any "cleanup" ... Λυδαcιτγ 01:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It's on the way. I thought it would be good to give you the opportunity to cleanup up the article. Ronbo76 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've worked on the written sources; proceed with the inspection. Λυδαcιτγ 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments have been added to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Complete Idiot's Guide to Slayer, I have replied there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:35, 30 May 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)

Cited and added. My citation is the Online Slang Dictionary, which is user-submitted, but vetted by the owner of the site, so I would consider it acceptable, at least for this purpose. Λυδαcιτγ 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automatic peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • All cited. Λυδαcιτγ 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), any more (B) (American: anymore), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 03:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tech N9ne

Not mentioned. odd --WildKard84 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Λυδαcιτγ‽ 02:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only does he backmask in his music frequently, He can do it live with certain phrases. --WildKard84 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Technically it's not backmasking if it's live, just a performance of phonetic reversal. That's neat, though. This guy learned the entire lyrics to Stairway to Heaven backwards...
Do you have any sources for Tech N9ne's use of either backmasking or phonetic reversal, as I'd like to mention him in the article? Λυδαcιτγ 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No sources other than the albums themselves. I could name some of the songs for you. --WildKard84 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor copyedit observations

On my recent copyedit pass I noticed a few minor problems which I can't fix as an outsider.

The following excerpt is unclear: "along with a mass record-smashing." Did they advocate mash record smashing in the lecture or perform mass record smachings at the time of the lecture (or something else). I suggest something like, "at which mass record smashings would occur" or something else that clarifies the meaning.

Also, avoid recently and today in the following excerpts; provide specific time frames: "which have recently become a popular method of exploring backmasking in popular music." "today can be reversed with digital audio editors" (see Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly).--Fuhghettaboutit 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what Vokey and Read say: "While in our city, Greenwald held a two-day public seminar on backmasking in rock music, which culminated in a mass rally and a large record-smashing spree." Others probably occurred, but I haven't seen any evidence of them, so how about this: "Also in 1982, fundamentalist Christian pastor Gary Greenwald held public lectures on dangers of backmasking, along with at least one mass record-smashing." Λυδαcιτγ 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear sentence

This was added to the end of the last intro paragraph:

It should be noted that the latter topic (dealing with the subliminal), as well as the designation "message", may well serve to confuse the intend of those artists who deliberately manufacture this kind of novelty.

I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. Λυδαcιτγ 03:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this statement caused any confusion. But do all of you guys really think that with all this about backmasking, that whatever credible instances there are, these are either merely done as a prank (makes for pretty hard songwriting, not to mention that satanism isn't shocking hardly anybody anymore these days), or are we to imagine these to be "messages" to some diehard fans? Unlikely. Musicians and producers must have better things to do. Such as: Getting an edge on the competition. It's a fierce business, everybody's already doing it. Doing what? Looking for all the help they can get ("I got the devil in my bag telling me what to do" - Bon Scott/ACDC 'Rock and Roll Singer'). What the "unclear sentence" was trying to imply is that often the motive behind "backmasking" is ultimately commercial in nature, employing occult methods. I hope this doesn't sound so crazy that we can not come to some kind of "consensus".Logognosis 03:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the subliminal part of it is addressed by the criticisms in Backmasking#Skepticism. As for the commercial part, that's probably true, but I don't think the article advocates anything else. They are messages, even if they're not, in many cases, intended to persuade. Λυδαcιτγ 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems we can agree that commercial considerations are what motivates a good number of artists to employ backmasking. And speaking of motive, isn't the question 'Why?' just as important as 'What?' and 'Who?' to a person researching this subject? I felt this aspect was missing from the paragraph I edited. Although I agree the sentence was not nearly as clear as it should have been. Any suggestions? Logognosis 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Well, because of the core policy Wikipedia:No original research, we need to find some material that has been written about the motives of the artists, and we can that use that to add information to this article. Try looking through some of the sources used as citations for the article. Λυδαcιτγ 06:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Will give it a shot. Thanks,Logognosis 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

O.K. found something: In his foreword (or "Overture") to the Zeppelin bio "Hammer of the gods" author Steven Davis comments on how the band's incredible success gave rise to rumors that suggested a "supposed deal with the devil" that "has a strong basis in popular music tradition". The author draws parallels to Paganini and infamous blues-man Robert Johnson, whom folklore is depicting as having sealed a pact with Satan, "garanteeing a lifetime of easy money, women, and fame." The comparison is driven home as the foreword concludes with Led Zeppelin being played backwards when a committee of the California State Assembly met for that purpose. "Sure enough...some members said they could clearly hear the ominous, slurry, bone-chilling words: "Here's to my sweet Satan." Really, what Steven Davis is doing is setting up the entire story of the history of the band to the backdrop that they may have achieved all their fame by ways and means expressed by what is perhaps the best known example of backmasking.Logognosis 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but that example I don't agree with. Plant was disgusted by the allegations of backmasking in Stairway: "'Stairway To Heaven' was written with every best intention, and as far as reversing tapes and putting messages on the end, that's not my idea of making music. It's really sad. The first time I heard it was early in the morning when I was living at home, and I heard it on a news program. I was absolutely drained all day. I walked around, and I couldn't actually believe, I couldn't take people seriously who could come up with sketches like that. There are a lot of people who are making money there, and if that's the way they need to do it, then do it without my lyrics. I cherish them far too much." And keep in mind that the Stairway messages aren't real backmasking, but coincidence. Λυδαcιτγ 22:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The thought that "the Stairway messages aren't real backmasking, but coincidence" is an opinion. And Robert Plants reaction as cited above is not consistant with what we know about Zeppelin. They always embraced paganism, why would they not be tickled at the thought of offending church-folks? And the singer who sang "squeeze my lemon until the juice runs down my leg" says about his lyrics "I cherish them far too much"? Whatever. Besides, none of this matters in the context of this issue. We're talking about "material that has been written about the motives of the artists"(to quote you). The shoe fits, put it on.Logognosis 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the Stairway messages have not been proven accidental, neither have they been proven deliberate. The controversy is described in the Accusations section, and that's where any theories of why LZ used these alleged messages would go. I thought you were looking for information about the deliberate backmasking shown in the Use section. But there might be a place for this theory. Two questions:
  1. Does Steven Davis clearly say that LZ used backmasking to make money, or would that interpretation be synthesis?
  2. Is the idea that LZ used backmasking to make money a significant viewpoint, or would describing it be giving it undue weight?
Λυδαcιτγ 03:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1 Steven Davis does not have to make accusations for us to be able to cite him - He is actually creating a neutral point of view: Documenting that others came to that "deal-with-the-devil" conclusion and that alleged backmasking supports that notion. This is not something we arrive at by means of "synthesis." 2 And the "deal-with-the-devil" argument is not given "undue weight" considering the "strong basis in popular music tradition", not to mention that even musicians draw our attention to it (Black Sabbath "We Sold Our Souls For Rock'n'Roll" / Nazareth "Sold My Soul" etc)

Without this aspect alluded to in the Intro-Article something is definitely missing! In view of all this, the sentence: "In debate are both the existence of backmasked Satanic messages and the ability to subliminally affect listeners thereby," should sound like this:

"In debate are both the existence of backmasked Satanic messages and the ability to subliminally affect listeners thereby, as well as whether backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural."Logognosis 12:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying. Here's what I'm asking: who explicitly suggests that backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural? Λυδαcιτγ 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Who explicitly suggests that Aleister Crowley had anything to to with backmasking? Please be specific.Logognosis 11:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of fundamentalist Christians, actually, including Jacob Aranza, as you can read here. But anyway, Crowley's own writing makes clear that he preached reversed listening to music... which is how backmasked messaegs are heard. Λυδαcιτγ 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just my point. Crowley taught how to enlist the aid of the supernatural. "Crowley's own writing makes clear that he preached reversed listening to music...(which is how backmasked messages are heard)" for that very purpose. Let's be consistent.Logognosis 11:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but I'm not sure how your addition expands upon what the sentence already says: "In debate are both the existence of backmasked Satanic messages ..." Isn't that the same debate as the one you are referring to? Λυδαcιτγ 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Satanic messages" is a broad term that referes to content. A "satanic message" could include those that are done as a joke, a prank, or for dramatic effect. Adding to the said sentence the words "as well as whether backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural" expands in the direction of those who might backmask as a practice of Crowley's teachings.Logognosis 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I kind of see what you are getting at. But Crowley didn't preach backmasking, but backwards listening to music. The only accusation regarding backmasking other than that is used for Satanic purposes that I've heard is that it is for mind control. Λυδαcιτγ 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "Crowley didn't preach backmasking, but backwards listening to music." True. You also said: "Crowley's own writing makes clear that he preached reversed listening to music... which is how backmasked messages are heard", when justifying the mention of him in this article. That is selective reasoning. Please let's stop going in circles. O.K. You mention that "the only accusation regarding backmasking other than that is used for Satanic purposes that I've heard is that it is for mind control." As I said: "satanic" is broad and not specific as to motive. No doubt you are aware of this accusation: " The facts above lead, not surprisingly, to a mystical conclusion that had many a music critic pondering and related back to many stories about popular music: in order to succeed, you had to sell your soul to the devil." The very first paragraph of the main backmask page link to the article with this quote(see "phonetic reversal"). In my edit "...as well as whether backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural" you may change "supernatural" for "devil" if you like.Logognosis 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The distinction you are making between "backmasking [being] employed to enlist the aid of the devil [or supernatural]" and "backmasked Satanic messages" is so thin that I would be surprised if anyone understands it without an explanation. I think that anyone reading the sentence as it is now will find it redundant. But perhaps my familiarity with the issue blinds me to the validity of the distinction. I'll ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Λυδαcιτγ 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion here. After reading through this discussion as well as the actual article I gather the following three questions of debate out of the sentence in question:

  1. Whether there exists satanic messages
  2. Whether there is a subliminal effect on humans from said satanic messages (if they exist)
  3. If these messages (if they exist) are used to channel demons or satanic beings

These appear to be three separate topics which (assuming proper references) people could have doubts or controversy about. However the phrasing does seem awkward probably because you are using the word "both" which indicates two and then listing three items. I would suggest changing it to: "In debate are the existence of backmasked Satanic messages, their ability to subliminally affect listeners, as well as whether backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural." Hope this helps Preekout 06:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Λυδαcιτγ for proving me wrong. I mistook you for an unreasonable person.Logognosis 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm? I reckon you proved me wrong - Preekout agreed with you that there was a possible third topic. What do you think of the current wording:

Whether backmasked messages exist and whether backmasking has been employed to enlist the aid of the supernatural are in debate, as is whether backmasking can be used to subliminally affect listeners

The article doesn't yet talk about the added question. Do you have any suggestions of sources? Preferably we would add the content (and citation) to the Accusations section, as the intro should be a summary of the rest of the piece. Λυδαcιτγ 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Or does it? Λυδαcιτγ 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the article really addresses the added question. As to suggestions of sources, that would depend on the approach. The two I mentioned could be used to establish a connection between supposed backmasking/phonetic reversal and alleged accounts of musicians trying to get a supernatural edge on success. Then we could mention some well documented examples of certain artist's interest in the occult, even song lyrics to that effect. I think you're right about adding content and citations to the Accusations section.Logognosis 02:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And I do agreee with the restructured wording. It has a logical flow to it.Logognosis 21:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other uses?

Shouldn't there be more uses of backmasking that just those that're listed? In Linkin Park's instrumental "Announcement Service Public", if you reverse the screaming vocals, he's saying "You should brush your teeth and you should wash your hands". How do you classify that? Zero76 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Backmasking, but needs a good citation. Λυδαcιτγ 07:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead external links found

One (1) link was detect as requiring assistance, Subliminal advertising: The voice within returned a HTTP 404 status message. —Dispenser 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Λυδαcιτγ 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial topic

User:Alvis asks in regard to the line beginning with "Backmasking has been a controversial topic in the United States since the 1980s...", I recall the media hyping it up, but was there ever any widespread controversy within the populous as a whole, or was it just on a limited scope yet focused upon by popular media? Citation needed.

Alvis, I'm not sure of the distinction you are making between the popular media and the populace. Doesn't the popular media connect by definition to the popular consciousness of a country? When the Evening News is reporting on a controversy, it is definitely a controversial topic.

One could question whether it has remained a popular controversy. The Wall Street Journal's article suggests that it wasn't widely discussed at one point, but "is enjoying a new cult following thanks to Web sites and software that do the trick." However, the sentence doesn't claim that is has remained popular, but that the subject has remained controversial, among whoever happens to be discussing it.

A look at Category:Controversies shows that there are many controversial topics that never entered the popular consciousness - for example, Abraham-Minkowski controversy - so my feeling is that popularity is not required for a topic to be controversial. Λυδαcιτγ 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion on the nature of a controversy by a few pundits vs. a real, widespread controversy within the ranks of Joe Public. Wikipedia demands citations for inclusion, so some cite, expressing either of these conflicts, is needed for this one statement. Alvis 06:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't the record smashing, the Evening News mention, the firing of the DJs, and the proposed legislation constitute evidence of a controversy? Λυδαcιτγ 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The rest of the article clearly outlines the controversy that resulted, and there is no need for a cite in the intro. - SimonP 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially the proposed legislation does because they represent the public (of sorts)Logognosis 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quicker and easier?

Alvis, how does one reverse the polarity on a tape's motor? Is it a different process from the one described in the article? I don't have much experience with tapes, but I can't imagine it could be any easier than digital reversal. If I load Stairway to Heaven into Audacity and click Effect -> Reverse, it will take perhaps 10 seconds to reverse. Λυδαcιτγ 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure the speaker was referring the the standard method of reversing it, not to mimicking the sound of the backwards recording. Λυδαcιτγ 01:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Recording backwards with tape involves physically flipping the reels and threading them across the heads so that track 24 on the tape runs across track 1 on the record, play, and erase heads. Actually reversing the polarity of the motors would not work because the rollers and tensioners that keep the tape in contact with the head are usually not symmetrical. Also, since the heads are arranged in erase|record|play order and the erase head is energized whenever the deck is in record mode, a track recorded in reverse direction would be summarily erased as soon as it was recorded. Ktakki 22:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Who invented the term "backmasking", and is there any support for the statement that "backward masking" is incorrect ? -- Beardo 01:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who invented the term. It is, unfortunately, not in any dictionaries I've seen (with the exception of Urban Dictionary). This discusses why "backward masking" is incorrect. Λυδαcιτγ 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Reverse Echo Effect

A neat effect from playing music backwards is the reverse echo. Here's a quote from a FAQ about The Smashing Pumpkins which explains how they created reverse echoes on their album Siamese Dream:

    'One of the cool effects I -can- explain is the 'reverse echo' used on the
    "bang bang" part of Silverfuck, as well as other songs.  The track is
    recorded, then flipped backwards, and echo/reverb is added.  It's then
    flipped back to forwards, so the effect is that of echoing -into- the
    note.

As an aside, there's a segment in the band's video Vieuphoria in which Siamese Dream producer Butch Vig jokingly 'explains' how they flipped the music around while creating the album.

Heh, I just noticed that there is a Wikipedia article on the reverse echo and Jimmy Page claims to have invented it.

Linked. Λυδαcιτγ 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimi Hendrix

Isn't "Castles Made Of Sand" by Jimi Hendrix a classic example of this? The lead guitar is (was) recorded, reversed, and then laid down on the track. --Spankr 11:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Hendrix made great use of backmasking, "Castles Made of Sand" is a prime example, as is the track "Are You Experienced?" among others. I'm actually a little shocked that he's not mentioned in this article considering it's a featured one.

Cyclopseslayer 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

His use of it would fall under Backmasking#Aesthetic_use, which is not what most of the article discusses. But if there's any good sources discussing his use of the technique, feel free to add the information to that section. Λυδαcιτγ 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Kids on the Block

When you play the New Kids on the Block album backwards it sounds better. 69.208.157.58 15:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

The section about the "controversy" (which is the rumor of Paul McCartney having died) is incorrect. As worded, the section suggests the rumor originated in 1969. However, The Beatles' "White Album," released in 1968, includes the song "Glass Onion," which refers to the rumor: "Here's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul." If memory serves, the rumor goes back to at least 1967. I realize none of this is terribly relevant to the article, so it's up to the dedicated editors if they wish to correct this.- ZincOrbie 17:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the rumor became widespread in '69 after the backmasking controversy. You may be right that it originated earlier - take a look at the Paul is Dead article to see if there's additional information that could be added. Λυδαcιτγ 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two issues here that could be confused.

On the one hand, a sound track or portion of one can be reversed and inserted into (or substiuted for) all or a portion of a recording deliberately for various reasons (e.g. as a promotional gimmick [if you think rock muscians capable of such a ploy]) for desired effects, which is, as I understand it, called "backmasking", a word whose meaning, BTW, is unclear to the uninitiated and which, seems to me, to suggest something more than the simple prosaic truth of the matter. Apparently the idea of playing a recording backwards occured to Thomas Edison; so much for later generations claims to innovation and discovery.

On the other hand, some sounds in some recordings when played backwards, sound, or seem to sound, like something meaningful, i.e. as word fragments, words, or short phrases, which might then be misconstrued as, or wrongly imputed to be, examples of backmasking. The one effect is deliberate, the other, accident combined with wishful thinking, a little imagination, or expectation.

When I was growing up, I heard the usual scuttlebutt (popular rumors and urban legends) about both effects, and never took any of it to be of any real significance; although, I can imagine members of the illiterate general public getting quite worked-up about this, and for that matter some, even, who ought to know better , e.g. our legislatures folks (we sure can pick 'em).

[edit] C S Lewes??

Since Lewes was born in 1898 it's pretty unlikely that he wrote The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe in 1913, when he was 15. He didn't - it was published in 1950. More likely to be Alasdair Cowley, ans the reference says

Fixed. Λυδαcιτγ 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Gibb Redirect

On following the internal link "Russ Gibb" on another page, I was led to an unsourced blurb about the man. On following the "Russell Gibb" link in this article, I was instead redirected to a page explaining the "Paul is dead" shenanigans in the 80's. It seems to me that "Russ" should redirect to "Russell", or vice versa, and neither of these should link to "Paul". Maybe an admin could take a look at this? Thanks. -ExNoctem 22:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Λυδαcιτγ 20:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for new sub-topic under "Accusations"

(The thrust of the paragraph lends itself to be placed just before the "Subliminal" subtopic; The title? Help me) Folk tales of musicians who would go as far as "selling their soul to the devil" in exchange for fortune and fame have been mentioned in connection with artists implicated with backmasking. Album and song titles as well as song lyrics of a number of artists lend themselves to such a scenario, and occult leanings of some artists accused of satanic and other backmasking are well reported on. Reversal of words and sentences is said to have played a significant part in the occult use of incantations and spells through the ages. And the casting of a spell would seem to a mystic what a subliminal message is to a scientifically oriented person: An attempt to exercise influence over others using unusual means that are not easily perceived.(proper citations forthcoming)Any opinions?Logognosis 22:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Wooten

Something perhaps worth adding - Victor Wooten has a track called "Pretty Little Lady" on the album Yin-Yang which he composed the vocal line forwards, then recorded it backwards, and reversed the recording so that the final song plays forwards even though it was recorded backwards (follow?). here is an interview where he talks about it. Chubbles 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it to Phonetic reversal, which has a couple of similar examples. Λυδαcιτγ 05:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Hicks

I think Bill Hicks' little routine about this should be mentioned, its hilarious!

"What band wants to kill its market?! Did that ever come up in the trial?!' - Bill Hicks | JAStewart 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clash

On the triple-disc* set "Sandinista!", by the Clash, the master backing track of Something About England is also used for Mensforth Hill - but played backwards.

*On vinyl, it sprawled over three twelve inch records. It's a two-disc set on the CD release. Or, for today's generation, it's 36 mp3s.

I don't know if anyone wants to include this in the section that lists many examples. I think it shows the breadth of genres the technique has been used in. The semi-snarky footnote is just written in a style we use at another wiki. I unreffed it here for clarity. Huw Powell (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestibility

A key problem with all of this is the suggestibility of the human mind. One you've been told to hear certain words in 'white noise' -you DO hear them even if they aren't actually there. If you examine the Zeppelin clip in Audacity, slowing the tempo so the 'pronunciation' is clearer, it becomes clear that the key 'word' is actually nothing like Satan. But, if you're told to listen for the word Satan before the clip is played, you hear it regardless.

For a good example of this effect, listen to the 'Buffalaxed' version of Kalluri Vaanil on YouTube. You really do hear the (rather rude) words in the subtitles, don't you? Yes. (and it is hilarious too) Now listen to the genuine version with the (translated) Tamil subtitles. Now the Buffalax version again. You no longer hear the 'mondegreen' translations because you brain has been 'clued-up' as to the right lyrics, and isn't fooled anymore. Now take a look at the score of the song, and you'll be surprised to see that it's not even remotely like the Buffalaxed lyrics. You heard those words -in a song you don't understand- because you were told to, not because they were there!

By the same token, most of these claimed backmask clips are what you are told to make of them, because you are told to. If you listen first, then read the claim, you realise it is not so.

--Anteaus (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)