Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Left-Field

Backmasked Lyrics: The Work Of Satan?

128 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

In the video above the narrator gives a presentation on unintentional backmasked messages in songs - usually having a satanic or negative connotation - which seems to prove it is a real phenomenon. There are some recording artists who have intentionally placed backmasked messages into their recordings - such as Pink Floyd's "secret message" on the song "

" - but there are many cases in which the presence of a backmasked message existing on a recording is debatable. One of the most notable instances of this is found when one backmasks the Led Zeppelin song "
."

In order to prove that the unintentionally backmasked message in a song such as "Stairway To Heaven" is truly present the narrator records himself singing the same lyrics, in the same manner as the recording artist, and then plays his recording backwards. When this is done we find that his recording produces the same backmasked message as is found in the studio recording.

While this may not surprise anyone, it does prove that the backmasked message doesn't exist only on the professional recording. It shows us that anyone who sings these lyrics to the same melody of the original song, and then plays the recording backwards, will find that they've produced the same message.

In order to prove that the backmasked words we hear are truly present, and not the simple result of one hearing what is suggested to them, the presenter then records himself singing the words found in the backmasked message to the same melody we hear them said when the original recording is played backwards. Amazingly enough, when he then plays this recording backwards, we can hear the original words being sung in the same manner we hear them when the original recording is played forwards.

At this point one could still debate that the backmasked message was purposely placed by claiming the band knew their lyrics, when played backwards, would produce such a message. This is not the case, however, as the narrator goes on to demonstrate and explain.

What we hear next is the narrator's recording of himself simply reading the lyrics (as opposed to singing them). He then plays this recording backwards. When this is done, however, the "secret message" is no longer heard. What we hear instead is nothing more than gibberish. This shows us that there is no way the recording artists could have known their song played backwards would produce any kind of message prior to recording the material.

Furthermore, it is only when the lyrics are sung to a certain melody that the backmasked message is present. This further exposes just how difficult, if not impossible, it would be for a musician to purposely place one of these backmasked messages into their work.

So how does this happen? Could it possibly be the work of Satan? If not, why do so many of these backmasked messages deal with a satanic, or negative, subject matter?

As the narrator makes mention of towards the end of the video, the Bible tells us that Satan was a "musical, angelic being that had instruments built into his body." These words are stated by the narrator and are not a quote from the Bible.

What the Bible does state in reference to Satan, however, is the following:

13"Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering: the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold; the workmanship of thy taborets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created."

14"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth, and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

15"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

Ezekiel 28: 13-15

"Taborets" and "pipes" are both references to musical instruments.

While there are many songs that contain these unintentional messages when played backwards the ones that are presented in the video are The Eagles' "Hotel California," Led Zeppelin's "Stairway To Heaven," Aerosmith's "St. John," and Electric Light Orchestra's "Eldorado."

The backmasked message found in Aerosmith's "St. John" is of particular interest.

While, obviously, everyone is free to comment on this subject, I would hope that most - if not all - who do so would watch the entire ten minute video to see demonstrations of what I have stated above. It should help to further one's understanding of how bizarre it is that these backmasked messages are present and how nearly impossible it would be for them to have been purposely placed there.

Edited by Still Waters
Text edited at OP's request

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The words forward,in hotel California,make it an obvious reference to something occult,but i never heard anything about any of those guys,or aerosmith,being involved with the occult.

I'd say if it was done intentionally,it was just for the publicity.

I've already stated my thoughts on stairway,on another thread.

I never listen to the songs backwards.

ELO,I don't know enough about them to comment,but the singer,at least,was a mighty weird dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think a lot of these artist do this for publicity, even bad publicity is better than none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read and heard through many sources that Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin was deep into the occult and had bought Aleister Crowley's castle. It was there that Stairway to Heaven was written in a matter of minutes if the story is correct. I think ELO has several intentional messages that are there just to mess with your mind but nothing evil. Aside from all this, its great rock music. I've never heard the reference to Aerosmith's St. John before until now. If anything, this gives me the creeps even more with the Beatle's Revolution 9, did they have the technology then to analyze and see what something would sound like in reverse in the 60's? Also, Black Oak Arkansas has an LP recorded from a live concert in which a message occurs. Those who watched the video, ponder that for a second...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say if it was done intentionally, it was just for the publicity.
I also think a lot of these artist do this for publicity, even bad publicity is better than none.

There are some instances where bands intentionally place a backmasked message into their recordings - such as the example I gave in the opening post concerning Pink Floyd's "secret message" backmasked into the song "

." Prince's song "
" contains another example of this.

This is done, however, by the artist recording themselves singing the backmasked message in a normal forward fashion and then placing the backwards recording of what they sang into the forward played track they have recorded. The end result is that when you play the track as it is originally released on the album backwards you obviously hear the message that was intentionally placed.

You will also notice that when you listen to these intentionally placed backmasked messages in the released forward version of the song the only thing we hear where the message is contained is gibberish.

In the video contained within the opening post, along with my description of it, it is demonstrated and explained how it is nearly impossible - if not totally impossible - for these satanic messages we find in some recordings, when a song is played backwards, to have been purposely placed there.

I'd explain it to you here, but like I said, the explanation as to why this is so is all ready contained within the opening post and the video that accompanies it. If you haven't read the post and / or watched the video I'd encourage you to do so.

If you have difficulties following along with the explanation or demonstrations then please ask about where you are confused and I will attempt to explain it in a more understandable fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know all this already,and we are all confused,why are you asking then ?

*shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pareidolia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pareidolia.

It isn't pareidolia. If that were the case we would not hear the original lyrics being sung to the same melody when one sings what is heard in the backmasked version of the song in question, and then plays that recording backwords.

A demonstration of this is done in the video beginning roughly at the 1:55 second mark.

This shows us that the words we hear in the backmasked version of the song are truly present.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you know all this already, and we are all confused, why are you asking then? *shrugs*

What is it that I have claimed to know? Are you referring to me stating these satanic messages could not have been purposely placed - except for the instances I have all ready made note of and explained how they were done - within the recording?

If so, I make that claim based on what is demonstrated within the video. If you watch it, and understand it, then you should be coming to the same conclusion. If you disagree with the video, and feel its demostrations are flawed, then I would ask you to explain why you believe that to be the case.

If you feel the demostrations are accurate, however, then you are really left with little other conclusion to come to then the same one that I have - that these messages are not purposely placed in the backmasked versions of the songs.

As to why I am asking what people think, it is because I had never seen a presentation on backmasked messages done before as well as the one contained in the video I posted. For me, it presented new insight into the backmasked messages phenomenon. I believe it will do the same for others who take the time to watch the video.

I've heard of backmasked messages being contained in music as far back as when I was roughly ten years old - which is approximately twenty years ago. I always found them interesting, but for the most part I didn't put much thought into them one way or the other.

A few weeks ago, however, I stumbled upon this video and was impressed with what is presented within it.

The reason I would suggest others are "confused" when it comes to their belief that backmasked messages are purposely placed within a song is because the video demonstrates to us that it is nearly, if not entirely, impossible for that to be the case.

If you are unsure as to why that conclusion is reached I will restate the following:

At this point one could still debate that the backmasked message was purposely placed by claiming the band knew their lyrics, when played backwards, would produce such a message. This is not the case, however, as the narrator goes on to demonstrate and explain.

What we hear next is the narrator's recording of himself simply reading the lyrics (as opposed to singing them). He then plays this recording backwards. When this is done, however, the "secret message" is no longer heard. What we hear instead is nothing more than gibberish. This shows us that there is no way the recording artists could have known their song played backwards would produce any kind of message prior to recording the material.

Furthermore, it is only when the lyrics are sung to a certain melody that the backmasked message is present. This further exposes just how difficult, if not impossible, it would be for a musician to purposely place one of these backmasked messages into their work.

The only way in which a "secret message" can be purposely placed into a song is if the musicians record the message they want to be heard in a normal fashion and then place the backwards recording of that message into the forward played recording of the song they wish to place it in.

Once these things are established it leads one to wonder - or at least it makes me wonder - how and why these satanic messages exist. For all these backmasked satanic messages to be nothing more than mere coincidence is unlikely. For that reason I ask if anyone believes it could be the work of Satan.

In posing that question I feel it is also worth noting the Bible states that God's "workmanship of thy taborets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created" in reference to Satan. It has also been contemplated as to whether or not Satan was the "Angel of Music" before he fell from Heaven.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Isn't it amazing how gibberish to some people sounds like satanic messages? It's called confirmation bias.

Who ever made the video failed their own experiment, couldn't even get the lyrics correct during 2:36 - 2:55, moaning sounds aren't words.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Isn't it amazing how gibberish to some people sounds like satanic messages? It's called confirmation bias.

You failed your own experiment, you couldn't get the lyrics correct during 2:36 - 2:55, moaning sounds aren't words.

They aren't moaning sounds. We can clearly hear that the experiment holds true. If you choose to be in denial about the occurence then so be it.

Also, the experiment is not mine. I did not create the video.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't moaning sounds. We can clearly hear that the experiment holds true. If you choose to be in denial about the occurence then so be it.

Also, the experiment is not mine. I did not create the video.

You're only proving my point about confirmation bias. They definitely aren't english words, something that sounds similar to a word doesn't cut it sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This shows us that the words we hear in the backmasked version of the song are truly present.

No, it shows us that sounds are truly present. You can interpret these sounds as words if you like but that very interpretation is the definition of pareidolia. Similar to a dog making an "I love you" sound. They aren't actually saying those words yet they are similar enough that it is interpreted as saying "I love you" (which is still pareidolia, as well as anthropomorphism by the way). For the backmasking theory to be legitimate it would have to be shown that these sounds were actually words and not sounds that happen to sound like words. And no, just because it sounds like a word doesn't mean it is a word. A word implies a type of intentional communication that 'Satan' does not adequately account for.

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it amazing how gibberish to some people sounds like satanic messages? It's called confirmation bias.

Who ever made the video failed their own experiment, couldn't even get the lyrics correct during 2:36 - 2:55, moaning sounds aren't words.

Thats exactly what I said. Argued with a friend of mine for like an hour. I was amazed that he actualy thought the lyrics backwards said such things. Especialy when they are telling you what to hear typed right on the screen.

Then he played a few examples for me, and slowed them right down to a crawl. I have to admit, after hearing them in slow motion, I was left troubled. Im not going to tell anyone what to think about this. I myself dont want to see it. But I really just dont know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats exactly what I said. Argued with a friend of mine for like an hour. I was amazed that he actualy thought the lyrics backwards said such things. Especialy when they are telling you what to hear typed right on the screen.

Then he played a few examples for me, and slowed them right down to a crawl. I have to admit, after hearing them in slow motion, I was left troubled. Im not going to tell anyone what to think about this. I myself dont want to see it. But I really just dont know.

Coming from you, I have to say I am now quite intrigued. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The phenomenon is a form of "audio pareidolia".

All of our language (speech) is made up of phonemes. These are the basic sounds we make when we say words. Playing our own language in reverse, we engage "confirmation bias", as Rlyeh said, to 'hear' phonemes in what was said. We do this because we already know what we are hearing is speech. Except it's not really, it's speech in reverse.

Because we have convinced ourselves we hear phonemes, the language centre in our brain then arranges these phonemes into 'words' - because that is what our brain does. This is pareidolia. We haven't really heard speech, we have heard sounds we know were speech (although reversed) and recombined those sounds into a recognisable pattern.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're only proving my point about confirmation bias. They definitely aren't english words, something that sounds similar to a word doesn't cut it sorry.

Interestingly enough, I find that you are the one holding a biased standpoint. I state this because, as best I can tell, you do not believe any unintentional messages can be found in backmasked recordings. I find it hard for one to believe that is a fact when there are numerous examples in which messages can be heard pretty darn clearly upon listening to a track played in reverse.

On the other hand, if I were truly holding a confirmation bias then it would stand to reason that I always hear the backmasked message some claim is present in any given song upon being told what it is I am expected to hear. This is not the case, however. I will acknowledge when people are reaching in their attempts to claim a backmasked message is heard.

If the unintentional messages really aren't present, then we should not be hearing the original lyrics sung when we play a recorded version of the backmasked message in reverse.

In other words, if what one claims to hear is nothing more than sounds resembling words, then when the words we believe we hear in the backmasked message are sang and recorded, and then played in reverse, we should not be hearing the original lyrics to the song being sung.

It seems to me that that it is a reasonable way of proving that what we hear in the backmasking is truly present. If the discernable message people hear isn't really present, then upon doing what I mention above we should hear nothing that resembles the original recording of the song.

I would also state that what you claim are nothing more than sounds resembling words could actually be real words coming out in a different dialect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...we have heard sounds we know were speech (although reversed) and recombined those sounds into a recognisable pattern.

Isn't this what we do with any speech we make sense of whether it is a forward or backwards played message?

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this what we do with any speech we make sense of whether it is a forward or backwards played message?

When you speak, you arrange phonemes in a specific order to make up words and sentences. Those phonemes only work in that order, and reversing them only generates 'noise'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

...and reversing them only generates 'noise'.

How can you claim it only generates "noise" when many others are able to hear recognisable sounds - or more to the point, recognisable words.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you claim it only generates "noise" when many others are able to hear recognisable sounds - or more to the point, recognisable words.

Gyains ma I thaw dternasndu uoy od?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the unintentional messages really aren't present, then we should not be hearing the original lyrics sung when we play a recorded version of the backmasked message in reverse.
I guess then beach towels really did turn into the virgin Mary because some people saw it.
In other words, if what one claims to hear is nothing more than sounds resembling words, then when the words we believe we hear in the backmasked message are sang and recorded, and then played in reverse, we should not be hearing the original lyrics to the song being sung.
And thats the experiment that failed, the reversed song sounded like the singers tongue had been cut out and stuffed into their sinus.

I'll bet if the author hadn't presented his version of the reversed "lyrics" it would've sounded like unintelligible gibberish.

I've noticed a lot with proponents of reverse speech (and other fields of pseudoscience), anything even remotely similar to their preconceived notion becomes proof.

Such as in the video, many of the complete words of the reversed lyrics can't be heard; "say" and "sat" becomes "satan", "pa" becomes "path", etc.It's gibberish.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I guess then beach towels really did turn into the virgin Mary because some people saw it.

Well, no. But if someone demostrated to me that the Virgin Mary had turned into beach towels then I would be left to believe that those particular beach towels can turn themselves back into the the Virgin Mary.

And thats the experiment that failed, the reversed song sounded like the singers tongue had been cut out and stuffed into their sinus.

If that is truly the case then you, nor I, nor anybody else, should be able to hear anything that resembles any type of language being spoken - or in this case, sung.

I'll bet if the author hadn't presented his version of the reversed "lyrics" it would've sounded like unintelligible gibberish.

I disagree.

I have even acknowledged that there are cases in which what you state above is true. There are also many instances in which a message can be heard, however. The demonstrations in the video are examples of this occurring.

I've noticed a lot with proponents of reverse speech (and other fields of pseudoscience), anything even remotely similar to their preconceived notion becomes proof.

Such as in the video, many of the complete words of the reversed lyrics can't be heard; "say" and "sat" becomes "satan", "pa" becomes "path", etc. It's gibberish.

To state that something is gibberish is to claim that nothing discernable can be heard. This is not the case, however.

Are you really going to tell me that upon hearing the sung recording of the backmasked message played in reverse you can't hear the original lyrics being sung?

They may not be said in the same exact manner that you or I would say - or sing - the lyrics, but they can most definately be understood. As I mentioned in a previous post, it is simply the dialect that changes.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gyains ma I thaw dternasndu uoy od?

Yes I do. You have asked me the following: "Do you understand what I am saying?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes I do. You have asked me the following: "Do you understand what I am saying?"

No, I didn't write that but the persuasive nature of language (and our pattern-matching ability) led you to interpret what I wrote as that. What I wrote was gobbledegook. Noise.

This is how effective we are at matching a previously recognised pattern to something that looks (or sounds) similar, but isn't the 'stored pattern' we have matched. This is what causes pareidolia. It is because of how we remember patterns, which is based on the whole of it without remembering the details of it.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.