Talk:Backward masking

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon media.svg

This Media hysteria related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

Could do with a cleanup.

Is there anywhere on RW that we can note that Proctor & Gamble had to pull their 130 year old logo because fundyloonies accused it of being Satanic (a moon and 13 stars). Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 06:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Satanic panic? humanUser talk:Human 07:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Regaring the Proctor & Gamble logo, I remember that scare. And indeed, I checked out the logo (on a bar of soap, actually) and indeed there were 13 stars, and if you looked at it in the mirror the curls of the man in the moon's beard did, indeed, spell "666". Which I thought was pretty nifty, rather than disturbing, and clearly not intentional. P&G did change their logo about then, ostensibly in order to "update" it, but everyone believed it was due to the bad and often stupid publicity. --Kels 18:48, 5 January 2008 (EST)
Ah, here it is. It's there, although it still takes some looking to spot the (apparently unintended) 666. --Kels 19:09, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I deleted:

"On the vinyl edition of The Beatles' "White Album", the final track (Revolution No.9) ends on the inner groove with the phrase "Number nine" being repeated indefinitely until the stylus was lifted. When played backwards this sounds like "I'm a dead man" and was suggested as proof of the rumour that Paul MacCartney was dead. Alleged further "evidence" was that Paul is shown without shoes on the cover of the "Abbey Road" album, a surefire indicator of his demise."

Sorry, that is simply wrong. Rev 9 is not even the last song on the record. You might be thinking of the runout groove of Sgt. Pepper, which is some gibberish tapeloop. As in, you drop the acid and put on the record, you are still fine to turn it over, but by the time it is doen side 2, you are "trippin' balls" and can't get up to do anything - and instead of listening to creak/chirp/click, you get a (sort of) treat.

As far as the "backward masking" in Rev. 9, sure feel free to write it. But listen to it first. humanUser talk:Human 07:42, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry Human, you are right #9 is not the last track on the White Album, Goodnight is (it was all so long ago now). However the Number Nine bit is true according to WikiP it actually sounds like "Turn me on, dead man" but when I did it I thought it sounded like "I'm a dead man" - that damned memory thing again! Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 08:02, 5 January 2008 (EST)
No big deal, I've pulled some total blunders out of my memory hole on here, too. Do you think we should list a bunch of specific masking incidences (real or imagined)? I'm pretty sure the very first "real" one was a Beatles guitar bit (on I'm Only Sleeping, as I recall). Words start turning up later, but I'm having trouble remembering many. Rev. 9 is definitely one, of course. I keep thinking Sun King, but that's nonsense, not backwards. Tomorrow Never Knows would have been a great place for it, but they didn't do it. Just that trippy tape-loop stuff on the backing track. Rain - I'm almost certain. Near the end part of the lyric is repeated backwards.
One of the sad things about digital tape recording (I have a couple of old ADAT decks) is that playing backwards is virtually impossible. Analog makes it easy. In fact, Lennon's inspiration to try it on a song was accidentally playing a tape he brought home from the studio backwards, because it wasn't rewound.
Now I gotta go look it up on WP - they might even have a complete list of real examples we could link to. humanUser talk:Human 18:43, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Nerd Question[edit]

I know that I'm showing my complete ignorance here - but how do you play a record backwards? Do you force it to revolve the other way against the needle or what? Does it damage the record?--Bobbing up 17:58, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

I can has mp3 playr taht plays in reverse? That's how it's done now. Back in teh day you used a finger to spin the record backward on the turntable and yes it damaged the record. Secret Squirrel 18:03, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
I had a belt drive 'table I could put on 45 and make the belt into a figure 8 and it ran pretty close to 33, backwards. Or, as SS says, with a direct drive or unbelted platter you spin it by hand, but very clumsy results. It only hurts the record if you bounce things around a lot. If you adjust the rake on the cartridge it won't hurt it "much", or the tonearm can be run all the way past the center to track in the "right" direction (on some manual 'tables, anyway). With CDs it became impossible, but with cheap software a .wav or .mps ought to be readily "mirror imagable" I would think. Anyway! The easiest and most obvious way to do it it with a tape deck that lets you listen to all tracks in one direction (like the trusty TEAC 3340, generic prosumer quarter-track open reel). That how John Lennon discovered how cool stuff sounds "backwards" - brought a reel home without having rewound it and put it on backwards. Woooooo! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:11, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
I did ruin a 45 of Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust", but that didn't matter since I also had the Queen's Greatest Hits LP and the 45 was no big loss... anyway sox input.wav output.wav -e reverse can has find teh Satanic subliminulz Secret Squirrel 20:20, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Backward speech site[edit] claims analysi of normal speech reveals subconcious truth , with examples and music discussion. — Unsigned, by: Hamster / talk / contribs 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sine-wave speech and "perceptual insight"[edit]

Sine-wave speech: sounds like modem/robot "bleeps", but after you have been primed with the original and hear the same thing, the bleeps form words. Creepy. Probably related to the way people hear things in EVP. So:

  • Does it belong here, in EVP, or in a separate article?
  • Should it be mentioned at all?--ZooGuard (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Scientific explanation for why everything sounds like Satan when played backwards...[edit]

From personal experience, I'm pretty sure I know why this happens: the way a beat (or a b or p or whatever) sounds backwards is something like "pfff", which could be interpreted as "s", which leads to "Satan", "666" and all that. I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Maybe we could find a scientific article on it before putting it on the page. -- (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My Edit is a good Edit[edit]

My edit ought to be allowed on this page, it's a very funny joke with a lot of potential. Just a short one-liner. — Unsigned, by: Logicnsuch / talk / contribs

@Logicnsuch You cannot simply plonk a sentence with a link into the article. If it's a joke it needs to be framed as such, not just be a link to who the fucking hell knows what, then tell people that it's funny and they need to go and figure it out on their own. That isn't funny, it's stupid. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So if I make the sentence funnier, THEN it can be in there? Logicnsuch (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Logicnsuch Probably not, given that after calmed down enough to double-check the file and google the results I found that it was just a European pop song. Nothing special there. In addition the "some people believe" bit requires citations. Who? When? What proof do you have for these claims? See the problem? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it isn't a European pop song- that's not the link I gave, anyway. Do you want the joke spoiled, or not? Logicnsuch (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Allowing for 'special effects and similar' - why put in a message that people would probably not be able to pick up/interpret? If it is loud enough to be noticed people would probably complain about 'unacceptable levels of background noise (and I want my money back)', if they were told about it 'You made me ruin my equipment' (and an assortment of parodists). Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)