Talk:Backmasking

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).

Merge from Reverse tape effects
Sure Reverse tape effects is arguably a superset of Backmasking but Reverse tape effects doesn't actually cover anything beyond Backmasking. ~Kvng (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I heard that backmasking Alan Walker's 'Faded' will yield a Satanic music. Is it true ? It's just a mere perception, right ?--Sam Ruben Abraham (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would say that the two shouldn't be merged, given that backmasking is a purposeful thing and reverse tape effects, which include but are not limited to backmasking, can be entirely accidental and oftentimes are entirely unintentional. That having been said, however, I can see your point that both articles seem to tread the same ground. I thought to add something about Edison's experiments playing recorded sounds in reverse, which is not the same thing as backmasking, in order to distinguish the two pages, but Edison's experiments are already mentioned in the history portion of the backmasking article. Perhaps we should carry some of the history portions of the backmasking article over to the reverse tape effects article and leave a link to the reverse tape effects article in the history portion of the backmasking article. Edison's experiments, along with other similar things from before the 50's, really aren't backmasking, in just the same way that Joan of Arc was not and could not have been a feminist, feminism not yet having been invented during her time. Perhaps the right thing to do is to merge the articles, but it really would be better if we could distinguish the two since they are distinct things. I'll put it on the list. JoePhin (talk) 08:09, 6 Jan 2021 (UTC)
 * , after reading this, I don't understand why you think it would be better to have two separate articles in this area. It is unnecessary and, as you demonstrate, will be a strain to distinguish them. And for why? There's no problem covering closely-related topics in a single article. If it eliminates overlap, it is a clear win. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , reverse tape effects that are often inaccurately mistaken for backmasking would be better housed in a separate article to prevent the two distinct phenomena from being confused with one another. Currently, though, some of those reverse tape effects are not mentioned on either article. I'll be adding some references. Joe (talk) 7:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , do you still plan to make improvements? I don't see any contributions from you to either of these articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for reminding me this page exists. Suffice to say, it's on the list. Joe  (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Still no contribution to either article by . I'm not able to make enough sense of their proposal to attempt to implement it. I still believe a merge is the best course of action here. ~Kvng (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Respect to you all for requesting a 3rd opinion. I've no axe to grind here, it's just an opinion / suggestion, non-binding, and make of it what you will.

It looks like there's some differing of opinion re. the distinctiveness of Backmasking and Reverse tape effects. The concepts do indeed appear to be closely related. Some merger into the larger concept may provide clarification that separate articles would struggle to do.

Here endeth the opinion. Treat it as you see fit. Thanks for making the request. Chumpih. (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed this with fresh eyes and have decided I'm going start by editing Backmasking to focus on intentional messages as this is the dictionary definition of backmasking. I will move more general discussion about reversed audio playback to Reverse tape effects. Once that is done, we'll see whether a merge is still warranted. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ There is little overlap now. It would be possible to merge the two articles. I don't see a compelling reason to do so at the moment. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Title of article and main term
The use of the term "backmasking" arguably violates NPOV. The term originated as a claim by some Christian sects that rock musicians were inserting "satanic" messages in their recordings by manipulating the recording such that when certain sections were played backwards, "satanic" messages would be audible. The key distinction is: these were NOT necessarily passages that had been tape- or digitally reversed. The claim also rests on the dubious assumption that human senses can process verbal information when it's reversed.

This article instead addresses instances of tape-reversed or digitally reversed recordings.

"Backmasking" as a term was not in use until, I believe, the late seventies or early eighties. It is anachronistic and inaccurate to generalize its usage to cover any and all instances of reversed recordings. Spanghew2fs (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

They Might Be Giants live recording a song to backmask during the same show.
In 2020 They Might Be Giants began playing a song now known as "Stilloob" https://tmbw.net/wiki/Stilloob which is recorded live during the first half of their live Flood anniversary shows, then backmasked and replayed backwards during the second part of the show.

The recording when reversed plays their original flood song "Sapphire Bullets of Pure Love" https://tmbw.net/wiki/Sapphire_Bullets_Of_Pure_Love

Here is a version of it on YouTube, but other then TMBW.net I'm not sure how to reference it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y03ABXQWQtE

This seems like a worthy addition to the Music section of the article. zack (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is a worthy addition if we can find a WP:RS that has reported on the performance. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In looking for reliable sources, the They Might Be Giants Wikipedia page references TMBW.net in various spots as a reliable source, and the song "Stilloob" has it's own page and description there: https://tmbw.net/wiki/Stilloob
 * Additionally for reliable source news articles, I've found: https://consequence.net/2020/02/they-might-be-giants-performed-a-song-backwards-watch/, https://laughingsquid.com/they-might-be-giants-play-song-backwards/ , https://tonedeaf.thebrag.com/they-might-be-giants-backwards-song/ , & https://www.stereogum.com/2072928/watch-they-might-be-giants-play-sapphire-bullets-of-pure-love-backwards/news/
 * I'm not certain which (if any) of those would qualify as reliable. hoffmanbike (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * TMBW.net is WP:UGC but the other sources you've listed, while not golden, are numerous enough to demonstrate that this performance is notable enough to deserve mention in this article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

example in a movie
please include it somewhere in the article if appropriate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJxSP3LC9BA then remove my topic from here (i'm inexperienced in editing/talk) 86.101.36.203 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)