|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Revolution 9 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.|
|WikiProject The Beatles||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 4 May 2010. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.|
- 1 There's actually a satanic message in this song
- 2 Who recorded this song??
- 3 Add McCartney as a writer
- 4 George Harrison
- 5 Football Chants
- 6 Paul is dead.
- 7 this song scares the crud out of me
- 8 okay, so I was done listening to the backword version of this song....
- 9 What?
- 10 The true precursor to noise rock?
- 11 Monty Python connection
- 12 satanic message?
- 13 music concrete
- 14 Voice of NY Yankees
- 15 Contradiction in section about Charles Manson
- 16 Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg
- 17 "Song"?
- 18 Vandalism
- 19 Backward song snippets?
- 20 Simpson...again????
- 21 Which references adds something?
- 22 musique concrète
- 23 'Backmasking'
- 24 Profanity Use
There's actually a satanic message in this song
On a part of this song (played backwards) you can clearly hear a woman say "Satan, look at me, please".
You can check it yourself, personally I hate this song in anyway.
Who recorded this song??
In the text I find "it was primarily the effort of John Lennon. George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and Yoko Ono made small contributions, while Paul McCartney did not actively participate in the track's creation." In another web page McCartney is credited for playing the piano in the opening.. And Ono is not credited. So what is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:34, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Ringo Starr participated in the recording process. Likewise, there is no evidence that: 1. The piano introduction to "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" is present. 2. Excerpts from "Honey Pie" and "Martha My Dear" are present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Add McCartney as a writer
Whoever is in charge of this article should add McCartney as a writer. Your article says McCartney wrote the "can you take me back where I came from, Brahma can you take me back ..." section, which ended up as the beginning of Revolution 9. Even though McCartney did not write it for that purpose. I can hear Lennon's voice singing it, does anyone know if the piano for that part was taken fron the McCartney recording of that song fragment, or was it Lennon playing? In any case, if your article is correct McCartney is a co-writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- The article says that "Can you take me back" was one of two unrelated segments between "Cry Baby Cry" and "Revolution 9". Most sources do not consider it part of "Revolution 9". It was recorded many weeks after final mixing of "Revolution 9". In the Barry Miles book (see References) on page 499, McCartney is quoted as saying (about Lennon and "Revolution 9"): "He went off and made that without me." The piano player isn't known with certainty; it's sometimes assumed to be either Lennon or from an archived recording. By the way, Wikipedia articles are not owned. –Mainstream Nerd (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Why would he contribute to this song only to later join forces with Paul, Ringo, and George M. to try and keep it off the album? --Ian911299
The recordings aren't of soccer chants, but of (American) football chants, and I'm changing the page accordingly. I consider myself an afficionado of both sports, and while I have heard the chants of "hold that line" and "block that kick" used in many an American football game (particulary at the high school and college level, where chanting is much more common), I've never heard them once used in a soccer game, in any league, any country, any level. I suppose you could conceivably chant "block that kick" for penalty shots, but I can't even conceive of a situation in which "hold that line" would make any sense at all! Of course, the accents of the chanters are clearly American, and this should tip you off, too. But to lay the matter to rest, see this handy-dandy list of American football cheers. If anyone can find a list of soccer cheers that includes "block that kick" and "hold that line", feel free to change it back.
- You're almost certainly correct since the crowd sounds were taken from the Elektra Sound Effects album set which was produced in the U.S.
Paul is dead.
I've played it backwards with friends and "number nine" does indeed sound like "turn me on dead man", though in a creepy sort of half-distorted way. You kind of have to adjust to hear it that way, but then it pops out at you, like those 3-D pictures that you have to focus on just right to see the image. It's enough of a non-coincidence that I always assumed that it was calculated, or at least a found object that the Beatles knowingly used.
I don't see how the "Paul is dead" thing can be called debunked. On Sgt. Pepper's, for example, there are so many clues that it looks certain that this was all a cool thing the Beatles cooked up, and their denying it to the bitter end is just part of the cool thing. Not a hoax exactly, just a prank that they let the fans in on by letting out info through "back channels." Of course, Paul couldn't be "dead" after they broke up because he wanted to have a career, but why should they ever fess up and spoil it all? But there are too many clues and weirdnesses to deny that there was a stealth "Paul is dead" campaign at least from Sgt. Pepper's to Abbey Road.JimmyTheSaint 21:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- It can be debunked because Paul isn't dead. Wow. That was tough. -Silence 05:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- what is the referent of your "it"? the point of the comment is clearly that the clues are real, not Paul's death. as the poster said, it's "not a hoax exactly, just a prank." the poster plainly asserts that the Beatles knowingly pulled this prank, so it's not a hoax that can be debunked. perhaps the confidence in which people proceed to dis and miss the obvious is a symptom of the kind of gullible seeing what you want to see that makes real hoaxes possible.
- The PID history is summarised at http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/faqs/pid.html. The Beatles had nothing to do with it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- Let's look at your two main points. First, that the "number nine" recording is actually a backwards message. This is ridiculous. If it was true, then the "creepy, half-distorted" audio was the original recording, and the man saying "number nine" was really backwards audio. If you can make a sound that played backwards sounds like a crisp British accent, I'll be impressed. Backward message mentions a study in which subjects could find non-existent messages in backwards audio, but only if they were given the message to find. Think; did anyone tell you that there was supposed to be a backward message?
- Second, you claim that there are a plethora of clues. Frankly, most of the album cover "clues" are meaningless. You can interpret the covers any way you want. For example, look at the mannequins of the young Beatles on the Sgt. Pepper cover. All of them are looking down- except John. Sounds to me like the Beatles arranged it that way so that fans would think John had died and been replaced by an impostor. Deltabeignet 07:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
There's so much imagery in Beatle albulms, especially Sgt. Peppers, that almost any concieveable idea could be gleaned from it. And additionally, "backwards messages" are completely unreliable.--MafiaCapo 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL I can't believe there are people who vehemently deny that there was a "Paul is dead" marketing hoax going on with the release of a number of Beatles albums. All you have to do is keep and open mind and listen carefully to the "hidden" messages. One of the Beatles clearly says "I buried Paul" near the end of their song Strawberry Fields Forever. It's undeniable. It is not certain, but likely, that the words "number nine" recorded in this song are pronounced in a way as to make it sound like "turn me on dead man" when played backwards. I just listened to the whole song in reverse (uploaded by a YouTube user) and you can clearly hear a number of disturbing messages with the volume up high. I can't be sure that this upload is legit, but I'll bet it is. It sounds like what I heard as a young man, including the repeated "turn me on dead man" portion. I just didn't think at the time to turn up the volume and listen for other messages. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
this song scares the crud out of me
|Not relevant to article|
Agreed, its the creepiest song I heard. The first time I listened to it I got so freaked out I couldn't finish it and had to skip it.
I love this song! I think it's awesome! --Ian911299
Lol, you and the millions of other kids who bought this album in the 60s bro
Yeah, creeps me out too. TheContralto 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Wild Honey Pie is great, but this isn't as good. In the old days of cassettes I would have the whole of Rev.9 run, but with cd's I usually skip this one and go straight onto the classic Savoy Truffle. 184.108.40.206 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
man, i totally agree, wild honey pie is one of my favorites but this one freaks me out too much to even listen to the rest. i dont know if i can handle this song normally, let alone backwords...
i must admit, this song is creepy, but i think its pretty cool how when he says "number nine" it switches from one ear on a headphone to another, anyone else notice that?
My friends, who are supposedly huge Beatles fans, hate this song. But it is one of my favorites from the album. It's cool, it's odd, and yes, it's creepy as heck! What's not to love? Now, if only Paul would release "Carnival of Light". Such a pity that George wouldn't let him put it on Anthology 3! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The first song I heard this song, I nearly threw up. Then I couldn't sleep. I want The White Album, but with a song as terrible as this, maybe I should think twice. Mjfan98 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
okay, so I was done listening to the backword version of this song....
Can anybody CONFIRM that, this is, indeed the backward version of dis song?
- Just stick it in Windows Sound Recorder and reverse it to see.Mr.hotkeys 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean in the middle of the song when a man says,"Take this brother, may it serve you well"? And what is the choir singing?El benderson 17:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the man is referring to a gun. If you listen, it sounds like there is a gun being cocked after he says this.
I didn't want to listen to the whole song so i skipped over a few parts and I noticed some screams. and I was just wondering if maybe it has to do with Lennon's scream in the very begining of Revolution? i'm pretty sure it may just be a coincidence but I just wanted to check.
The true precursor to noise rock?
what do you think?
Monty Python connection
The 3rd episode of Flying Circus (with the theme "How to recognise different types of trees from quite a long way away") has the voice-over "Number 1: The Larch" frequently repeated throughout. MP's FC started in '69, so it's not much of a stretch to suggest it's a reference. - AlKing464 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
people say this track has a satanic message. couldn't we get maybe some sources about that, since some people apparently believe that?
The text states "influenced by the musique concrète styles of Karlheinz Stockhausen and John Cage" - however neither Stockhausen nor Cage were exponents of musique concrète, it was originated by Pierre Schaeffer at the RTF Studios in Paris. Stockhausen was interested in "Elektronische Muzik" and Cage in indeterminicy. Please check this on the electronic music pages. The text should be edited to reflect that musique concrète was a development of Schaeffer. 18.104.22.168 10:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Voice of NY Yankees
- The article states it is from an EMI examination tape. Page 307 of the Beatles Anthology book quotes Lennon from 1970 saying it "was an engineer's voice" and that "the voice was saying: 'This is number nine megacycles.'" I agree with you insofar as it would be interesting to find out the man's name. Richard K. Carson 02:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Contradiction in section about Charles Manson
The article states that Vincent Bugliosi "came up with the theory" regarding Charles Manson making the connection to Revelation 9, but the next paragraph states it as fact that Manson made the connection. StaticElectric 02:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Bugliosi never came up with any theory. He simply exposed Manson's theory. BillyJack193 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg
Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Revolution 9 really properly described as a "song"? It would not seem to conform to any definition of the term I've been able to find. I propose "recorded composition".
I looked this song up and got this:
Backward song snippets?
Every I hear Revolution 9, I swear that I can hear parts of Strawberry Fields Forever and other songs mixed in. Can anyone shed some light on my question, please? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh boy, yet another Simpsons reference crammed into an unrelated article. It adds nothing, I repeat, nothing to an understanding of the song and is no more relevent than the lists of trivia that are routinely deleted on Wikipedia.126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Tim
Which references adds something?
Is this consensus description for the song? Because following the link, I don't find a description that really comes close to what R9 is. I've heard it described as a sound collage, which fits better, but my own preference (as mentioned here some time ago) would be simply be "recorded composition". I will wait for discussion here before changing. Jgm (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made the change, linking the term farther down in the lead, and requesting a citation for the bald claim of influence. Looking back, the change in description was made about a year ago by an anonymous editor (prior to that it was "sound collage", prior to that it was "song"). Jgm (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The first time I heard this song, I couldn't hear the conversation. However, I knew that part had profanity. Near the middle of the song, there is a part that says something like "joining the fucking navy". I never knew that part was there, then I looked up the lyrics. Mjfan98 (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)