Talk:Eye in the Sky (song)

Wording/Grammar

Is not up to Wikipedia standards. I updated, my edit was reverted, on the grounds that my edit changed the meaning and was not necessary. For the time being I am putting my edit back in place- if anyone has some constructive criticism or can explain how my edit changes the meaning, let's please discuss it here Diabloman 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

___________

If you look at the history page, I was the one who created and wrote this entire article, on the account of my own English. And I feel it's a good job you did in your recent edits Diabloman. Congrats. My English isn't all perfect, and it maybe simple as it seems, but I do know the entire facts of this song. So as a contributor, am I entitled to contribute what I know regardless the standards of language I used? Indeed, after time, people are entitled to edit what they can to improve articles in Wikipedia. - It doesn't matter if each one of us has differences in terms of writing standards, but our motives are clear. Users with great knowledge will contribute, while others with a high level of English can improve the article's standards. Ultimately, that is the cycle of Wikipedia. Whether big or small, we each have our own strengths of commitment.

If I was against this type of cycle, I wouldn't have created this article in the first place. It's just common sense, and it doesn't take an intellectual to understand this.

Sorry for the extra texts above, but I believe in the expression of thought of a certain subject. Anyway, speaking of which, I personally do not think that your edits changes its meaning or context entirely. I am in favour and support your new edits. In any article, I believe there is always a scope of improvement. This is one of them you have done, and that is good.

Someformofhuman 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! Well first, let me say thanks for getting the article started in the first place- you are absolutely right, everyone contributes what they can and as a whole, Wikipedia becomes better. If not for your time and effort, we wouldn't even have an article to go on. My edits, I feel, improve the readability of the article without changing your original meaning- please don't think I'm bashing on your content or your English at ALL. Mostly, I commented in response to whomever reverted my edits on the grounds that they changed your original meaning and were unnecessary. As I'm sure you'd agree with, I find it annoying when something I've put time into simply gets reverted without a really good reason. Again, although it is my opinion and subject to discussion, I felt that changes in wording improved the overall article, not that the original was bad (I apologize if it came across that way), but it looks like we agree the original meaning is retained with the new wording.

In any event, looks like it's all sorted out now? Thanks for taking the time to comment, I appreciate it.

Diabloman 16:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now this is the type of conversation that I would like to see in Wikipedia. Peaceful heartily discussions and not something "my own way, you be quiet and follow it", if you do know what I mean...

Anyway thanks alot. I appreciate it too, sorry for the late, late, very late reply.

Someformofhuman 08:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved

This is undocumented speculation and probably wrong since it contradicts the next paragraph: "The song is in part a reference to George Orwell's classic novel 1984, regarding a possible future in which individual privacy is virtually non-existent due to the ever-watching eye of Big Brother. In the novel, citizens are constantly monitored by satellites and hidden video recording equipment." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see songfacts.com: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1929 Sources are under external links and it was stated. Reverted all edits. If it contradicts the next paragraph by anyway, please do edit the article in a way so that it follows. I also added more references if you need any.

Thanks in regards..

Someformofhuman 08:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Songfacts stated: The rumor has it that this song gets its theme from George Orwell's 1984, which revolves around a dystopian future where citizens are constantly monitored by a totalitarian world government. However, even the official page of the Alan Parsons project which talks about this song doesn't mention any connection. There is also nothing in the lyrics to connect it with this novel - those of us who have actually read the book know that there are no specific references to "eyes in the sky" i.e. satellites and such, but just cameras and telescreens everywhere. Meanwhile, the lyrics make no reference to Big Brother, Ingsoc, Newspeak, proles, ministries, Room 101, and so on, which is common jargon in the book. if there is no other evidence I would also assume that this is indeed undocumented speculation and most likely wrong. -- Linksfuss (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Rap cover for eye in the sky

hi everyone! recently i heard a rap song which instrumental was the begining of Eye in the sky". I haven't been able to find it since then. Can someone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.74.13 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Separate page needed for 'Sirius'

There are numerous references to the lead-in song 'Sirius' on this page. I wonder if the Toronto Blue Jays actually use 'Sirius' (common used at sporting events) or 'Eye in the Sky'. Also, there's another cultural reference to Sirius that doesn't really belong on this page. Sirius deserves it's own page. Sure, this page should link to it, etc. If you believe the one song leads into the other, then perhaps a single page that covers both songs. I'm too lazy and timid to create the page myself. JordanHenderson (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the page over, I'm pretty sure the "Introduction to this song" referred to is talking about the song 'Sirius'. This should be clarified and separated out. JordanHenderson (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification about most radio stations playing 'Eye In The Sky' without the 'Sirius' lead-in

Although I have nothing to go on except personal experience, wouldn't it be better to say that most stations with a T40/oldie format play the song without the lead-in, while classic rock or AOR stations play them together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.195.159 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lady Antebellum's "Need You Now"

Our article currently states:

Reports surfaced in November 2010 that Lady Antebellum's single "Need You Now" has the same melody as "Eye In The Sky".

I just went to YouTube and subjected myself to a full-length listening of "Need You Now". For which, I hope to receive your thanks and, most of all, your sympathy. That's right: I listened to the song so you wouldn't HAVE to.

While Lady Antebellum (or whoever) is indeed guilty of poor songwriting, I would vote to acquit them of charges of plagarism. There is only the slightest of similarities, in the first two chord changes. I'm not sure how to express it in Roman numerals, so I must use examples: The changes of D to F# minor, for example, or G to B minor. A to C# minor. C to E minor. You know what I'm talking about now, right? You do if you're a musician.

The actual melodies are not at all similar, and the chorus chords do not continue to do what "Eye In the Sky" does (for example, the minor IV doesn't appear -- no G minor chord in the key of D major, for example), just those first two chord changes (repeated).

Furthermore, the cited source appears to be DEAD. And what was it -- a blog? A blog is a worthwhile source nowadays? Why? Because it's hosted by Yahoo!?

So . . . I'd like to see the quoted material removed from the article. Anyone else?

--Ben Culture (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Song is about casino surveillance cameras

There's an official 'Ask Me Anything' session on Reddit from 2014 in which members of the Alan Parsons Project - Paton, Bairnson, Elliott - confirm that this song is about survellance in casinos. tharsaile (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is completely not true in any manner. 172.56.23.63 (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eye in the Sky (song). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026072330/http://50.6.195.142/archives/80s_files/1982YESP.html to http://50.6.195.142/archives/80s_files/1982YESP.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)