Jump to content

Talk:Another One Bites the Dust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Backward masking

[edit]

Anyone else think that is so-called "subliminal message" of marjuana smoking pleasure is a very big stretch?

it's crystal clear not like that stairway to heaven thing. the best way to see if a subliminal message is "lagit" is that how you spell "lagit?" never mind. is to record the lyrics of youself saying it and then reverse it. another bites the dust works when you do that. also there's a weird al song that when played backwards says "chewbacca likes to eat cheese" or something stupid like that

And contrary to what the message says, it is NOT fun to smoke pot, it's bad for you and illegal (this is there for those who don't know) CoolKatt number 99999
Speaking of Weird Al and backmasking, if you play "Nature Trail to Hell" backwards, there is deliberate backmasking that says "Satan eats Cheez Whiz" CoolKatt number 99999
Auch come on, it's PURE COINCIDENCE that if you play the lyric backwards, it sounds VERY VAGUELY like "it's fun to smoke marajuana" - Deacon wrote the lyric because of what it sounded like sung forwards! there's nothing actually recorded backwards on the recording - it's just Mercury singing it forwards.--feline1 12:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a coincidence. We all know that. However, that isn't demonstrable fact unless we have record of a denial from Deacon or Mercury. Debunking urban legends is original research. Finding a reliable source where someone else has isn't. Besides, we explicitly call it an urban legend, which should be discrediting it enough. Deltabeignet 06:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is just fantasy and nonsense. It *IS* demonstrable. By listening to it. With your ears. When playing the record forwards, there are no audible backwards vocals: there is only a forwards vocal. There is no backwards vocal on there. Nobody went into the studio and recorded a vocal with the tape running backwards, to embed a "subliminal message" into the record. It simply is not there. There is precious little other instrumentation on the tape to confuse the matter (just drums, and bass guitar + guitar playing the riff.)Even if someone is congentially deaf, they can double check by reading EMI's published "off the record" transcriptions of the multitrack tapes (in the "Queen Greatest Hits - Off the Record" sheet music book). I'm quite sick and tired of the continual vandalism and rubbish on this article about this!--feline1 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi! What's all this, then? You can't really be seriously moved to edit war over whether the article says "doesn't countain backwards masking" or "really doesn't contain backwards masking", surely? Pull your heads in, the pair of you, or I'm turning this encyclopaedia right around and you'll just have to miss out on your holidays this year. By the way, Feline1, I assume you didn't intend to accuse an opponent in a content dispute of "vandalism" just there ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add my two penceworth, but I don't think it sounds *remotely* like "It's fun to smoke marijuana". It will sound a bit like it, but that's because you've been told what it is supposed to sound like, and the power of suggestion is obviously huge. I guarantee if you played the backwards sample to someone without telling them what to hear, they wouldn't have a clue. After all, it is just a load of reversed word sounds. Davetibbs 06:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this stems from a fundamental misunderstand of Wikipedia's nature. The encyclopaedia cannot state that there is no deliberate backmasking, without a source to back this up, even if it is obvious to one and all; that would be no different from writing that "Another One Bites the Dust is a catchy song with a good beat". This is true, but says who? User:Feline1 can't cite himself. We could perhaps cite this article at the Wall Street Journal, from January 2006, in which a spokesman for Queen's record label expressly denies the presence of backmasking. I have to wonder why no-one here has done so already. I am unwilling to make the edits myself, because of the aforementioned edit war; I bet lots of people have this page on their watchlist, and will pounce at the slightest change. Perhaps it would be better to simply write about the backmasking controversy, with some facts ripped from backmasking, and not make a statement one way or the other. E.g:

"A common urban legend has it that the chorus of Another One Bites the Dust, when played in reverse, contains the messages "it's fun to smoke marijuana" and "start to smoke marijuana". This was first pointed out by RESEARCH RESEARCH in YEAR and was cited in a bill passed by the Arkansas State Senate RESEARCH RESEARCH (link to New York Times article). The band denied this RESEARCH, although the legend persisted for several years afterwards (link to Wall St Journal). The song can be heard in reverse here."

The article on backmasking links to this New York Times article, which indirectly references Another One Bites the Dust. Perhaps someone with access to the US legal system could dig out the Arkansas bill mentioned in the article and slap it up on the internet. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another part appears to go "It's for fun, smoke it, then get stoned" backwards (source=YouTube video "Subliminal Messages 5"). Just sayin'. Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this here, since this may well be an urban legend, as well. But supposedly during the height of the Atlanta Child Murders an Atlanta morning radio show DJ team were interrupted by a news bulletin that the body of yet another child had been found. When the news report ended, they came back on the air and played "Another One Bites the Dust." After a huge audience uproar, they were fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.33.209 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GUYS! GUYS! Did you know if you play the song forwards it's about a guy shooting people with a machine gun? It's true! 74.76.128.250 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an unimaginative totally literal interpretation, yes. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a literal interpretation. It's exactly what it is, at least that's what my friend's cousin said. Anyways, an article at the Wall Street Journal said it was true so that's a reliable source. 74.76.128.250 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should lookup literal. Do you have a link to the Wall Street Journal? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

genre

[edit]
  • The genre status claims that this is a funk-oriented rock song. I believe that is unverifiable although it was dubbed into an album of the Pure Funk series. This song is played on classic rock radio stations and dubbed into classic rock albums. The case of the song "Low Rider" overlapping both genres is more logical than this song. So I removed the funk orientation reference on this article. --SuperDude 03:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd more tend to call it "disco"? --feline1 12:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason for the NPOV/Factual warning to remain in place, or can it be removed now? Sherurcij 09:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an italian versione "Annamose a fa du' tost"

Use of Song in Rocky 3

[edit]

Wasn't this song supposed to be used for Rocky 3 instead of Eye of the Tiger but the the band (Queen) rejected sly's offer. I think this should be mentioned. Opinions... 78.69.235.75 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Jerry[reply]

If you can find a good cite then says this, then yes. If you can only find gossip or no cites, then no. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Article for Rocky 3 mentions this in the trivia section: #

  1. The movie's soundtrack contained Survivor's "Eye Of The Tiger." The song went on to become an international chart-topper later in 1982. Stallone had originally intended for the film to feature Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust", but he was unable to secure the rights.[citation needed]"

(I'm sorry, I don't know how to link to wikipedia articles directly) I just think that the articles should have the same information. I don't really care, either someone should add it to both articles or remove it from both.78.69.235.75 (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Jerry[reply]

You're right. Notice that important tag at the end. It's uncited trivia. So it doesn't have any real value and shouldn't be spread around as if it was confirmed fact. If truth be told it should be removed from the Rocky 3 article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I googled this stuff and I came up with a couple possible verifications: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/united-artists/rocky-iii-790755.html?r=RSS - This one is from a newspaper & http://www.jimpeterik.com/btseot2006.htm - This one is from Jim Peterik's website (he is the songwriter of eye of the tiger) Here are the blurbs from each website respectively if you don't want to skim through all the articles.

  1. Before settling on the film's signature song of "Eye of the Tiger" by Survivor, Sylvester Stallone wanted to use the already hit song "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen.#
  2. We were immediately knocked out by the power of the quick-cut visuals. We were also struck with how well the action worked with the temp music they had supplied - "Another One Bites The Dust" by Queen. I remember shaking my head and saying, "How are we ever going to beat that one?"#

If you think this is enough information please cite these as references and add them to the articles. Alas, I don't know how to cite facts myself. By the way, thanks for checking on this regularly. 78.69.235.75 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Jerry[reply]

Two interesting websites. But to me they say something different. The first website [1] looks very much to me that the information on it has actually come from the original Rocky 3 Wikipedia article. So citing that as a supporting reference would be a circular argument. The second website [2] looks much more promising, but if you read what it says; "He said he was using what he called "temp", or temporary music in the film thus far, but that he wanted to replace it with originals written specifically for the movie." That to me says that Another One Bites The Dust was never the intended final music, it was only temporary until "Eye Of The Tiger" replaced it. Stallone never wanted to use it. Whether this is notable enough to warrant mentioning on the article, I don't know. But it is far less notable than Stallone intending to use it on the final version. Especially as no-one appears to have an explanation why, if Stallone really wanted it, they didn't use it. In the meantime, I think I'm going to remove it from Rocky III and add your cite from Jim Peterik. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is "neutral"?

[edit]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a "neutral" point of view. So why did your article contain this statement?

"In 2008, DJ Lobsterdust released a mix of the song called "It's Fun to Smoke Dust" that combines the original with a recording of Gary Greenwald's 1982 rant about the alleged subliminal message in the song."

Personally, I'm a skeptic regarding subliminal messages, but the word "rant" is hardly neutral. On the contrary, it suggests that the writer of this article has an axe to grind. I took the liberty of changing "rant" to "accusation."97.73.64.172 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 3.3 million articles here... They're not all perfect! Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Thanks for the helpful edit. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Al Yankovic

[edit]

I am removing an addition regarding Weird Al Yankovic. I don't see how the addition of his cover comedic version is relevant in the introduction of the article. If someone is to add it back, please do so on the other covers section Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


good call 128.100.71.45 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glee cover

[edit]

Someone has to add that Glee has made a cover of this song. LucyJhonson (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. The Glee cover song is not notable in any way. It didn't make the charts, it didn't win any awards, and it hasn't been written about by third parties. – jaksmata 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics Analysis

[edit]

I've removed the addition of a "content" section by Daniel Kellis. This is to explain why. The addition is 100% original research in that it is Daniel Kellis personal opinion and analysis of what the song is about. Analysis of song lyrics can be tricky, as they are not always to be taken literally. We also don't know what Deacon had in mind at the time. More factually, the lyrics don't specify anywhere that it is "Steve" who has the machine gun, or whether it is someone else or "Steve" who "bites the dust". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate; this interpretation is a valid as Daniel Kellis' and tells a totally different story.
  • "Steve walks warily down the street" - Steve is being watched by a hidden observer
  • "Machine guns ready to go" - note the plural "guns". The observer has a machine guns too.
  • "Out of the doorway the bullets rip " - Steve is walking in the street, so the bullets can't have been fired by him
  • "Another one bites the dust" - Steve dies, like others before him
  • "Hey, I'm gonna get you too" - his killer warns that vengeance on those who have wronged him will continue
Or.. the entire thing could be a metaphor about rejection. I'm in no position to say, and neither is Daniel Kellis. That's the problem with original research. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that makes me mad! If only I knew the name of the editor -- or where to find the guy -- so I could give him a piece of my mind!
Oh, well . . . Probably just some drive-by editor who will never be back again.
--Ben Culture (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammys: How does a song lose to an album? (For that matter, how does Bob Seger beat anybody?)

[edit]

The song also garnered Queen a Grammy nomination for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal.[1] The band lost to Bob Seger's album Against the Wind.[1]

How does a song lose to an album?

Either "Another One Bites the Dust" lost to "Against the Wind", or The Game lost to Against the Wind. (Praise Queen for not calling their album Another One Bites the Dust.) I like that it's not just a link to Seger's album, but the text actually says "Bob Seger's album". Heh! Someone should look into this.

Furthermore, how does Bob Seger win Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group-- oh, "Bob Seger AND THE SILVER BULLET BAND", right. Eh. Queen was cheated.

A brief reading shows, Against the Wind is a right cheat all around. For one thing, he's got a whole other band on it, called The Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section (six people), who play on HALF the tracks instead of The Silver Bullet Band. The album not only has both bands on it, it also has more session players than the Silver Bullet Band has members. Yet THEY get their name on the album and win a Grammy meant for fucking bands. That's just obnoxious.

But only when we see that it took a full TEN (10) people to produce Against the Wind (including the band whose name ISN'T on the album) can we fully visualize and truly appreciate the image of Seger kneeling in flames to tongue Mephisto's bung. Complete with full Grammy insertion. You know where.

Meanwhile, Queen's membership changed by how much? Oh, yeah: Not at all. Four guys. Real band. Right. Man, if I were John Deacon, I would have put on the mother of all rock-star hotel-room temper tantrums that night! He'd be perfectly entitled! It took Bob Seger three bands and ten producers to beat Queen.

--Ben Culture (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "23rd Grammy Awards". Rock On The Net. Retrieved 29 July 2013.

Juno Award

[edit]

Found out it won a Juno Award, and thought that was important enough to add to the second paragraph at the top. Just an fyi. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

I added two new quotes, from Brian May and Roger Taylor, another fyi. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Another One Bites the Dust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Another One Bites the Dust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cliché, but—well, it's another cliché

[edit]

Has anyone else noticed how many rock, pop and and country tunes are based on clichés? This one is the first that came to mind for me—but really, there's a ton of 'em. Would there be any value to starting a list page called (e.g.) "Popular Songs Based on Clichés", with links to each song's page? Seeing them all in one place like that would emphasize what a pervasive phenomenon it's been, and perhaps stimulate discussion on what songwriters consider "creative". 😉 – AndyFielding (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Another_One_Bites_the_Dust&oldid=1204883221"