Beatles Revolution #9 (subliminal messages)

hey i´ve just been listening to the beatles song Revolution #9 .
When you listen to it,its kind of strange and you ask yourself what´s it about?
But then when you are listening to it backwards it is really shocking cos there are a lot of hidden messages ( for example SATAN LOOK AT ME )

Well normally i don´t believe these kind of stories because i think that you can interpret everything you want, especially when you listen to the song backwards. There is a song of tupac in which when you listen to it backwards he claims " Yes i´m alive ", but that is all made up i think.


But this beatles song is really mysterious, i don´t see the reason for such a strange song.

Please tell me what you think of the song or in generall subliminal messages in songs, here is the link of the beatles song

www.youtube.com...

David John Oats founded Reverse Speech that has done extensive research into the speech recognition in reversed audio and music. The White album by the Beatles is one of many he has studied. Check it out.



Cheers!!!!

thanks very much for the link of the site.

it´s really great

reply to post by rob.j


No problem.

2nd line.



Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by rob.j

Please tell me what you think of the song or in generall subliminal messages in songs

"Subliminal messages" are one thing but "reverse speech" is another. "Reverse speech" is nothing more than audio pareidolia. Don't buy into it as anything significant in any way.

If someone did not tell you what your were suppose to be 'hearing' in reverse.... would you hear the same thing? probably not.

I think its silly personally.

Ive never bought into backward masking or subliminal messages in music,
but number nine is an interesting number.


2x9=18... 1+8=9
3x9=27... 2+7=9
4x9=36... 3+6=9
5x9=45... 4+5=9
6x9=54... 5+4=9
7x9=63... 6+3=9
8x9=72... 7+2=9
9x9=81... 8+1=9
10x9=90. 9+0=9
11x9=99. 9+9=18
12x9=108.. 1+0+8 =9
13x9=117.. 1+1+7=9

[edit on 31/12/2008 by Sauron]

Technically, it's a Beatles' song...more accurately, it's one of Lennon's songs. And, more accurately, it's an Ono/Lennon song.

By that point, The Beatles had been back-masking for years (since Revolver), so it'd be no surprise if Yoko and John put more backwards stuff into #9.

What baffles me most is that Lennon wanted to use #9 as an A-Side single. He was pretty wacked-out by that point.

Personally, I hate the song and find it pretty much unlistenable...not because Yoko was so heavily involved in it, but because describing it as a "song" is being severely optimistic.


[edit on 31/12/08 by Fuggle]

reply to post by Sauron


yes you´re right, 9 is a strange number.

By the way i was born the 9.9.1989
So that makes me some kind of weirdo

It's not a song it's a musique concrète.

No structure, no melody, harmony, rhythm etc...

The number '9' was Johns birthday, his favourite number, and a cutting he found in the studio of the engineer marking a tape cutting.

The track was just John playing with his new 8 track tape machine that he just purchased and had installed in his home studio.

It's mostly studio outtakes, George Martin and Alister Taylor talking, an orchestra warming up, tape loops, studio rehearsal outtakes, primal screaming, recordings from his TV etc....

Multi tracking was still a pretty new concept in the late 60's, and for John to have his own machine was rare at that time. It was something that wasn't really widely available until the advent of the portable 4 track machine in the 80's.

It has the mythical 'Turn me on deadman' Paul is dead clue.

ok you´re right.
but these strange sounds doesnt make any sense even if it´s no song.....

[edit on 2-1-2009 by rob.j]

reply to post by Fuggle


i agree on everything you said, but can you tell me the sense of the song?
i mean there are a lot of strange sounds which doesnt make any sense, so what´s the reason they put it / or john lennon put it on the white album

reply to post by rob.j


Why'd they put it on the White Album? Because, as I understand it, Lennon wouldn't take "no" for an answer.

The Beatles were at their worst during The White Album Sessions, in terms of their relationships with one another. They weren't getting along. To a large degree, they were doing their own things...in fact, as I recall, in some instances McCartney would be recording in a different studio (within EMI at Abbey Road) than Lennon.

According to head-engineer Geoff Emerick, "they didn't seem to be very interested in getting each other's opinion, much less offering suggestions". And he asserts that The White Album is like four solo albums, rather than a Beatles' album (Emerick wrote that he thought the song was as much Yoko's as it was John's...and of course Yoko was a practitioner of the avante garde).

McCartney wasn't around for mixing the "sound pastiche"...he was in America. When he did hear it, he hated it. Eventually, he and John had a big argument about it--Paul didn't want it on the album...but John got his way.

As to the meanings of the "song" and the choices they made in "samples", back-masking, et cetera, I don't know. John would again use "9" as part of a theme with #9 Dream, a terrific song, with his girlfriend of the time (May Pang), whispering in the background.

I'd guess that Lennon wanted to do things that hadn't been done before--he wanted to push boundaries, make art...shake people up. It might help to be on the same drugs Lennon was on to understand what he and Yoko were doing (not sure exactly what drugs those were, though).

...and remember that a lot of what Lennon/Ono did didn't make sense. John seemed to enjoy speaking and singing nonsense just because of the way it sounded (#9 Dream, The Sun King)...and, if not total nonsense, then near nonsense ("Cranberry sauce!").

And Yoko CERTAINLY loved to make very weird sounds (what's the name of the concert they played with Clapton, where they played "Cold Turkey"...?).

You might be on a path to frustration, trying to find deep meaning in Revolution #9.










[edit on 2/1/09 by Fuggle]

[edit on 2/1/09 by Fuggle]

reply to post by rob.j


I know you're not asking me but I'll give you my 2c anyway...

John fought hard to get revolution 9 on the white album. He wanted to make a statement.

John was not happy with the Beatles musical output, or it's image. It was too 'muzak' for his tastes, too commercial. he was hating the whole Beatle image by this point because it wasn't real.

The Beatles whole public image and persona was created, and wasn't even close to the real Beatles. John resented this more than the others, Paul reveled in it and perpetuated it, which is what really lead to the bands breakup.

All 3 members had left many times leaving Paul to talk them into keeping it going. He had just convinced John not to quit, and then he turns around and publicly quits the band himself. He couldn't stand the idea of any of the other 3 taking the spotlight for such a huge event. He wanted that privilege to help his own solo career, which he had just embarked on with the release of his album 'McCartney'.

So point is John wanted to release this track as a sort of statement, saying look we're not just muzak 'pop stars' we are real artists.

And yes the Revolution 9 style was considered art in the avante guard circles. He wasn't the first to do tracks like this, just the first commercial one.

Pierre Schaeffer is known as the first to record such compositions, there are many others.

Originally posted by Fuggle
And Yoko CERTAINLY loved to make very weird sounds (what's the name of the concert they played with Clapton, where they played "Cold Turkey"...?).

Good post!

That would be the Toronto show that they did with Eric in '69, released as 'Live Peace'.

They did it for Eric actually. He was a full on heroin addict at this point and his career was failing. He could barely play guitar, and hadn't touched one for awhile when John invited him to play.

John did it because of all the help Eric had done for the Beatles, such as playing on 'My Guitar Gently Weeps' etc., and for playing on Johns albums (Plastic Ono Band).

thanks very much for your postings ANOK.
You seem to know a lot about music and the beatles.

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry for the OT post, but...

Anok--I think I've mentioned before, months ago, that you really seem to know your stuff, when it comes to The Beatles. Which are the best books on the subject, in your opinion? I don't part easily with my money--books are very expensive where I live.

As an apprentice audio engineer, I consider Emerick's book to be pure gold...but, of course, it's only one perspective.

Also, please don't be offended, but I detect that you are more sympathetic to Lennon than McCartney...is that accurate?

Fuggle

reply to post by rob.j


reply to post by Fuggle


Thanx guys, I'm just an opinionated Beatles fan lol.

There are so many books it's hard to suggest any really. Albert Goldmans book 'The Lives of John Lennon' is a must read though. Very controversial when it came out, but most of it has been proven to be true since it's release.

Best way to find the truth though is to watch lots of interviews and read between the lines. Also the movie 'Let it Be', if you haven't seen it, is a good look at the band in it's later days. It gives you a good look into the atmosphere around the band at that time.

There's a vid out there of John and George Harrison recording, or rehearsing, that song "How Do You Sleep' at Johns house. They take the piss out of McCartney the whole time, and get pretty nasty about it.

Edit to add...

Not the clip I saw, but this one is great...

www.veoh.com...

(warning Parental Advisory)

That's the actual recording session, I think what I saw was just John and George alone playing guitars and talking more about the song and Macca.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by ANOK]

Yeah its like the whole Brittney spears song "hit me baby one more time" that has the words "sleep with me i'm not too young", this may not be back masking as Lennon did know what he was doing when he created number9 the Brittney verse is debatable as deliberate or coincidence.

reply to post by stealthyaroura


No man! It is nothing like Britney Spears!

I always thought this was a Paul mix, read it on songfacts.com I think...

Personally I enjoy the way it ends off the album. The whole thing is very eclectic, I can only imagine how hard it must have been to create a finale for what is in my opinion a flawless album, an ending to encapsulate the rocky seas surrounding the band and its future.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by The_Modulus]