I absolutely think so. Even the current state of mind of an artist while he sings or plays gets transmitted to those who listen, whether live or in recorded form. I think a different level of reality can shine through music, for better or worse.
Taylor Swift shilling for the PTB?
- Thread starter Musicinventor
- Start date
I absolutely think so. Even the current state of mind of an artist while he sings or plays gets transmitted to those who listen, whether live or in recorded form. I think a different level of reality can shine through music, for better or worse.
That's curious! Makes me wonder about those who claim to have memory distortions or concert amnesia. Who are they, what are the commonalities aside from an obsession with Taylor Switch, and so on.
It seems, judging by the samples provided in the video, likely that those who experience the amnesia are among the most hardcore of fans. They're also likely to be among the most suggestible and hypnotizable of the crowd. Put the two together and one can imagine these people are also likely to be lefty types whose brain has turned to mush by THE MESSAGE and the various other Matrix lies.
So it's little wonder how seeing TS can become the highlight of such a person's life. Though maybe this in itself isn't enough to explain the phenomena.
This seems like the most reasonable explanation. How did they get to that point? Well, I think we can guess.
I watched the Eras Tour movie (at double speed and skipping much but making sure there wasn't anything I might've missed that would be important) and saw a whopping one scene with a CGI snake (a quick intro to the album Reputation portion of the show), one scene with a checkerboard floor, and one scene where TS had a cloak and was kinda like a witch for about 30 seconds. Nothing like the video presenter was suggesting in terms of it being a Satanic ritual or mass hypnosis in a directed sense. Whatever evil or Satanic stuff might be in her videos, it wasn't shown on the tour. Not that I could tell anyways. Which, admittedly, is possibly the version of the tour least likely to show anything malicious were something malicious going on.
With that additional bit of info about the tour itself, I think what can be gleaned from Marjoe's experience, what can be deduced from those who are affected, as well as what others have written regarding their emotional experience at the concert I think we have enough to piece together why so many people seem to be having amnesia at TS' concerts.
They're suggestible and dissociated people having a religious experience invoked and involving the audience as much as TS herself. At least, that's my best guess.
I think it's a bit of both: genuine music that contributes to the creation of culture (primary), and 'controlled shaping' via various means, mostly commercial (secondary). Luc put it really well:
One thing I think we need to remember about Dave McGowan's whole Laurel Canyon schtick is that Dave McGowan is also the guy who wrote a series about how the moon landings were faked. Some people just go overboard with the conspiracy stuff. Sometimes there's no satanic mind control; it's just a talented person pumping out catchy tunes that a bunch of millionaires decided to make as big as they possibly could for their own empire-building reasons.
But on the subject of 'satanic' activity and 'witches', the following reference that Laura made in her article Witches, Comets and Planetary Cataclysms springs to mind:
Given the sophisticated psychopathic-materialistic mindwar on religion, especially Christianity, is it any wonder that some mainstream Christians might be desperately looking for a way to stave off an impending crisis of faith, thus we get all kinds of conspiratorial accusations levelled against celebrities who, while certainly not embodying the highest of virtues, are obviously innocent of other motivations?Laura said:
Not sure it's fair to criticize TS based solely on her repeated use of the same 3 - 4 chords, as I'd estimate over 90% of popular music (good and bad), in some sense, relies on the same relative chord structure which lies at the foundation of western music.
The central "key" that a song is written in is called the "root" chord. The two chords that naturally "fit, or sound good" in that key are called the 4th and the 5th chords (which are 4 and 5 steps away form the root note on the piano). There is also a "relative minor" belonging to each key, which we would find on the 6th note.
So, in the key of C - the F chord is the 4th and the G chord is the 5th, with Am being the relative minor.
But if you start in the key of G - the C chord is the 4th and the D chord is the 5th, and Em being the minor.
In that sense, you can play almost any song in any key as long as you know the root and it's relative 4ths and 5ths.
Heart and Soul is a good example of following a Root - Minor - 4th - 5th progression (C - Am - F - G), which is shared by other popular 50's Do-Wop songs like "Dream and Little Dream of Me" by the Everly Brothers, Earth Angel, Blue Moon, Stand By Me, etc.
The 12 Bar blues progression is another good example of how the exact same chord progression can be crafted into a myriad of different songs, each one unique and interesting in itself, but based on the same overall pattern.
It most often looks something like this - Root (4 bars) - 4th (2 Bars) - Root (2 Bars) - 5th (1 Bar) - 4th (1 Bar) - Root (2 Bars)
And can be found is such Classics as "Rock Around the Clock" by Bill Hailey and the Comets, "Tutti Frutti" by Little Richard, "Hound Dog" by Elvis and "Travelling Band" by CCR. The Beatles themselves recorded over 25 different songs (some originals, some covers) using this 12-Bar Blues pattern or a slight variation thereof.
Hopefully, all the non-musicians out there can forgive me for delving a little into musical theory. I brought it up to illustrate that it is not necessarily simplicity or using familiar well-worn chord progressions that makes a song boring or superficial. At the same time, music that is more complex using uncommon or unrelated chords and unique patterns is not necessarily better or more interesting.
I like to think of popular music kind of like a chessboard, where there can be an infinite amount variety within a finite space. Where a chessboard is confined to 64 squares, no two chess games are played out exactly the same. And using a traditional 3 chord (root, 4th, 5th) in different combinations, there can be amost endless variety within as evidenced by how many widely different popular songs have been made using only this formula.
For me, a really good song consists of a perfect marriage of chord progression, melody line and lyrical content, and although it's rare that a song contains all three in equal degrees, it does seem that certain songs that "stand the test of time" are well-represented in these three aspects. From what little of her music I've heard, TS seems rather mediocre in all three areas.
So, I agree as others have said, what differentiates the music of TS from other older classic pop music is, for want of a better term, the lack of heart and soul. Taylor Swift herself (and by extension her music) is a "product" of the music industry, made for mass consumption, like a plastic piece of fruit wrapped in cellophane, that looks fresh and shiny but whose beauty is mostly fake and superficial.
If popular music is a "reflection" of the times people are living in, then the music of Taylor Swift is perfect mirror of life on 21st century planet earth.
Yes, this is a better version of what I was trying to say!
Last edited:
I don't see many attacks on the materialistic types of Christianity we have in the West. I see attacks on objective spiritual teachings in the Christian faith, which are uncommon in many churches today. The Catholic Church is not being attacked by officialdom and is part of the PTB it seems. The churches have been fooled and have taken an entropic, STS path. Nevertheless, any hint of truth or real spirituality that remains in churches is subject to STS attack. When real truths are lost, religions become cultlike. Church members become narcissistic, they tend to cast out anything and anyone as 'unbelievers' who deviate from their dogma in the slightest.
I think one has to look at each artist individually to determine how much the artist knows about what's going on. Those more in the know and more willing are probably used as 'handlers' for those artists who think they are just playing a game with the industry.
I don’t know much of TS’s music, what little I’ve heard I don’t much care for at all.
I agree that there is no soul in virtually all the arts, not just music. This loss of soul, of beauty in art, music & even in architecture, makes so much sense in light of McGilchrist’s hemisphere hypothesis. McGilchrist suggests that the shift towards the left hemisphere results in a loss of melody and harmony, which is replaced by simple rhythm.
The Master and his Emissary said:
I am open to admit there was *maybe* an authentic expression of artistry and true connection coming from TS and others at the start of their careers. I guess it makes it easier for when the commitee of producers and execs come in and take over. What happens next is well known, the artist gets compromised and gives in. This can take many forms, I guess, it could be they become overly sexualized, scandalous, erratic or whatever. And one begins to think if they were transmitting something truthful at all or part of a plan all along.
Yeah, my sense as well. I guess the stakes are higher now, and part of the deal is to become an obedient robot, or else they will cut off the fame they all seem to crave.
Now, I found this interesting exchange:
13 September 2009
BHelmet
The Living Force
“A: In some cases. Like an audible "Catcher in the Rye."
Q: (C**)…. It's supposedly a kind of MKULTRA trigger thing.
A: Many triggers for many programs. Now you have the means to cancel much of this”.
This made me recall that for decades they had kids in school read this, which makes little sense. Both hilarious and pathetic, it was a one shot book from a mostly unknown author. It was not a masterwork of great literature. Salinger has no body of work really other than this one book to recommend him (assuming Salinger was real and this was not a “project”)
I have tended to think of “Catcher” in the programming of isolated, individual nut-job cases only. But this has been mass disseminated for generations (!) which is def worth 4.5 Spock eyebrows. Everyone who has grown up in the US in the past 75 years has had this seed implanted at an impressionable age!
Q: (C**)…. It's supposedly a kind of MKULTRA trigger thing.
A: Many triggers for many programs. Now you have the means to cancel much of this”.
This made me recall that for decades they had kids in school read this, which makes little sense. Both hilarious and pathetic, it was a one shot book from a mostly unknown author. It was not a masterwork of great literature. Salinger has no body of work really other than this one book to recommend him (assuming Salinger was real and this was not a “project”)
I have tended to think of “Catcher” in the programming of isolated, individual nut-job cases only. But this has been mass disseminated for generations (!) which is def worth 4.5 Spock eyebrows. Everyone who has grown up in the US in the past 75 years has had this seed implanted at an impressionable age!
Ketone Cop
Jedi Master
This article brings up some interesting points re: manipulation of the human mind through mass media and the setting of the stage.
radiofarside.substack.com
The main points:
"The invention of the proscenium ( Proscenium - Wikipedia ) created a separation between the acting area and the auditorium, with the psychological effect of making the audience feel unthreatened by the scene unfolding before them. Feeling safe from the activity in the acting area, audiences let their psychological defenses down and become passive observers of the world created within the frame.
In the “safe zone” of the auditorium, the audience is shown characters acting and reacting to various situations, with the attendant consequences. When characters behave “correctly,” they are rewarded with accolades and adulation, and when they behave “badly,” they are punished with tragic outcomes and scorn. In this way, audiences are taught what is permissible behavior, and are shown graphic depictions of what happens when they don’t follow the social norms.
Being psychologically removed from the scene, the audience relaxes and focuses on “the message,” rather than constantly assessing threats and anticipating responses. Instead, they internalize the scene and file it away for future reference. They empathize with the main characters and vicariously “feel” the rewards and punishments meted out in the course of the scene."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Modern films and shows have violated a cardinal rule of the proscenium — the fourth wall — which is the imaginary wall of the arch that separates the audience from the scene. With the ham-fisted “inclusion” and “diversity,” the sense of “reality” is lost. Furthermore, when the characters begin lecturing on “good behavior” and “right think,” the fourth wall is pierced and the audience no longer feels safe. The scene has spilled into the auditorium and the audience immediately raises shields. They are no longer safely observing the scene from a distance, but are now pulled into it, with all the attendant psychological threats."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Back when I went to see concerts, I simply went to be entertained. Today, many artists seem to be doing all they can to make their shows immersive experiences for their audiences, making them a part of the show instead of merely performing. I think Radio Far Side does a good job defining part of the problem and explaining some of the results of breaching that "fourth wall".
RadioFarSide’s Teletype | Radio Far Side | Substack
Creative anachronists for an authoritarian age. Click to read RadioFarSide’s Teletype, by Radio Far Side, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.
radiofarside.substack.com
The main points:
"The invention of the proscenium ( Proscenium - Wikipedia ) created a separation between the acting area and the auditorium, with the psychological effect of making the audience feel unthreatened by the scene unfolding before them. Feeling safe from the activity in the acting area, audiences let their psychological defenses down and become passive observers of the world created within the frame.
In the “safe zone” of the auditorium, the audience is shown characters acting and reacting to various situations, with the attendant consequences. When characters behave “correctly,” they are rewarded with accolades and adulation, and when they behave “badly,” they are punished with tragic outcomes and scorn. In this way, audiences are taught what is permissible behavior, and are shown graphic depictions of what happens when they don’t follow the social norms.
Being psychologically removed from the scene, the audience relaxes and focuses on “the message,” rather than constantly assessing threats and anticipating responses. Instead, they internalize the scene and file it away for future reference. They empathize with the main characters and vicariously “feel” the rewards and punishments meted out in the course of the scene."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Modern films and shows have violated a cardinal rule of the proscenium — the fourth wall — which is the imaginary wall of the arch that separates the audience from the scene. With the ham-fisted “inclusion” and “diversity,” the sense of “reality” is lost. Furthermore, when the characters begin lecturing on “good behavior” and “right think,” the fourth wall is pierced and the audience no longer feels safe. The scene has spilled into the auditorium and the audience immediately raises shields. They are no longer safely observing the scene from a distance, but are now pulled into it, with all the attendant psychological threats."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Back when I went to see concerts, I simply went to be entertained. Today, many artists seem to be doing all they can to make their shows immersive experiences for their audiences, making them a part of the show instead of merely performing. I think Radio Far Side does a good job defining part of the problem and explaining some of the results of breaching that "fourth wall".
Evan
Dagobah Resident
Um, my dad was a classically trained pianist who started me on formal lessons when I was 6. I was a working musician for nearly 40 years. I think you may have missed my larger point, but hopefully my other posts in the thread have helped.
Incidentally, I took History of Rock Music class for an easy credit in college, and what you wrote was nearly identical to the first 3 weeks of what the teacher explained the class. You could write a textbook for that class! Not joking. You explained it very clearly.
DianaRose94
Jedi Master
The exchange from the session is interesting because that's something I've noticed too. There are people obviously can't sing but are pushed to the forefront and loved by the mass. A good example of this imo atm is Olivia Rodrigo and Billie Eillish. i've watched clips of both singing live and it was painful. I could never finish any of the former's songs, and the latter always makes me want to yell "stop whispering and please sing with your full voice". Same for actors or other artists. What I've noticed too is that compared to the past, celebrities imo are a lot less good-looking and charismatic which is surprising considering in term of makeup, hair, and other tools the world has improved. If you look at current IT actors/ actress/ celebrities, they're a league below what we had in previous generations (though I dont deny that some are ultra talented) but surprisingly no one seems to pick up on this fact.
The part about everybody having a program is interesting because something I've noticed is that the vast majority of people do not care about things that they should really care about such. A big example of this is health. Living in UK, the level of chronic illness, mental illness and mental disorders (the last one especially in children, teens and young adult) has tremendously increased, but no one seems to care even though if society doesn't collapse, it will have a massive economic and societal impact with lots of people requiring care for life. Now I'm wondering if it's because alongside personality, many are made to "sleep" through the media they consume.
cholas
Dagobah Resident
Sir Paul McCartney dances with fans at Taylor Swift’s Wembley gig
The Beatles star joins a growing list of A-listers who were spotted at Swift’s London concerts over the weekend
www.standard.co.uk
Taylor Swift Fans Can't Get Over Paul McCartney Experiencing 'Beatlemania-Type Fervor' From the Eras Tour Audience
Two peas in a pod?
Interestingly, the Daily Mail (see their short video) stated that TS looked 'possessed' in what they call a 'major glitch during Wembley show'. Also, that thingy @31 seconds looks like a UFO to me. Or am I seeing ghosts? 
Just exploring this a bit more. I'm thinking of many different instances where I've had rather profound experiences with music only to find out later that the artist is actually an idiot. One example would be Radiohead, who I think have some truly excellent music, yet they support Extinction Rebellion
I've often thought that a true artist has the ability to channel something higher, some level of universal truth, without inserting an excessive amount of their own personal and subjective sh*t; like they're actually able to step aside and let something beautiful come through. There are so many examples of rather terrible people creating great art and the only explanation I can come up with is that they're actually able to access something higher or objective in human experience and are conveying that without excessive subjective corruption (probably to varying degrees).Probably because of the music I listened to growing up, I tend to respond much more to music itself rather than lyrics (although not always). I often find lyrics to be disappointing, TBH. Like I'll connect with a song at a musical level and when I start paying attention to the lyrics they just come across as self-indulgent, crass or just plain stupid. It's like the music itself is touching on something profound, but the artist then dumps a bunch of subjective junk on it; like corrupting the channel, to a certain extent. I'm sure this is also a technique for programming; deliberately tacking a bunch of negative 'stuff' onto a positive source.