Talk:Total Eclipse of the Heart

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

Inspiration?![edit]

I saw the reference to Wuthering Heights as inspiration. But... what about musical inspiration?! The theme of Total Eclipse was totally nicked from the unknown American group Ford's Theater and their 1968 LP "Trilogy For The Masses". The "Theme for the masses" from this LP is EXACTLY the same as Total Eclipse. I'm surprised that no one ever sued Steinman! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb007 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's so annoying about the Ford's Theater music is that I think it should be included, but there's no writing on it, so if anything were added to the article, it would be original research, which unfortunately can't be added. Tricky situation! Bonnietylersave (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turnaround Skit[edit]

The “Turn Around Skit” was created in 1989 . The choreography was created by a high school student from Anchorage and it was performed at drug and alcohol prevention conferences around the state of Alaska. It was originally conceived as a skit to display the cycle of substance abuse and recovery. The creator is not surprised that it was adopted by Christian groups, but wants to set the record straight that it was not created to be a specifically Christian message. That being said, the creator of the skit wants anyone who is in recovery to find whatever they need to help them recover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyinak (talk • contribs) 04:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC) I removed a reference to the "Turnaround Skit" being Christian, which was immediately reverted. Here's my explanation for the removal:[reply]

First, a web page I created [1] is used as a reference here. This page is a reference page for organizers of Hugh O'Brian Youth Leadership (HOBY) seminars. This skit is used at several seminars in the US, including the Michigan-West seminar for at least the past 8 years. It is also the only place I've ever seen the skit. HOBY has no religious affiliation, explicit or implicit.

Second, The revert message was: "Does anyone remember the Turnaround skit, either from high school or from your Baptist church growing up?" The variation on the skit explained on my page has no religious references whatsoever. The skit consists of a fairly powerful story of a woman falling into drug addiction and surviving with the help of her friends. While drug use is discouraged by many religions, religious groups by no means have a monopoly on this skit.

Finally, two of the three external references given are for purely secular versions of the skit, and the third is a blog entry.

I am removing the Christian reference again, please discuss it here in the future. --Dcclark 01:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I quoted "Does anyone remember the Turnaround skit, either from high school or from your Baptist church growing up?" from this blog [2] I didn't add the skit part, someone else did. When added, it stated that it was Christian, so I did some searches on Google, and that's what I came up with. Either way, you're most likely right. But it seems that this skit has some vague Christian connections.
EliasAlucard|Talk 03:53, 12 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
My school (a Catholic academy in Ontario, Canada) did a version of this play that had faceless actors portraying the Seven Deadly Sins instead of drugs, and the three friends reduced to a single Christ-like figure. Perhaps this version was the Christian play/skit/performance that earlier users recalled.
Quite likely -- there seem to be Christian variations on it, but it's not fundamentally a Christian skit, which is the reason behind my changes. --Dcclark 22:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backing[edit]

I hear that's Meat Loaf doing the backing vocals ("Turn around..."). Is that true? 142.161.198.177 21:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Doing"? For which project? The JPS 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about Total Eclipse for the Heart, the back-up vocalist was Holly Sherwood. I don't think there were any others in the song. Graham 05:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you heard is not true. Rory Dodd sang the turn around lines in this song. Meat Loaf's voice was severely damaged at this time. Rory Dodd (and probably Holly as well) did the back up vocals in the choir part of the song in the beginning, where you can hear a choir if you concentrate. But at the end, when the Turn Around voice fades the song, that's Rory Dodd all the way, and every other Turn Around line.
EliasAlucard|Talk 11:11, 06 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

Added to article[edit]

This was added to the article by an anon: "Not sure where i should add this, but could sombody do somthing on this page explaining what the song means?" I think this is a good suggestion, but I don't know where to start without making it look like a high school essay. Graham/pianoman87 talk 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but remember that any such section would need strict citations. Otherwise we would be stooping to POV or original research. The JPS 03:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can tell you here thought. Its all about affairs.. illicit sex. "every now and then".. she wants more "love in the dark". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.40.8 (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by Wuthering Heights?[edit]

Does anyone have evidence for this? I know the writer produced MTV's Wuthering Heights adaptation, but that doesn't mean anything.

Mmm... haven't heard anything. It's All Coming Back to Me Now was inspired by WH, but that is sourced in that article. The JPStalk to me 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably most successful to date?[edit]

"It is probably Steinman's most successful commercial composition to date."

What does that mean? To what date? Ccrrccrr 06:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11 years late on this, but just in case anyone's still following, the phrase "to date" in this concept means "so far", or "as of today", and if it's still not apparent, just think of it as "so far, as of today's date". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.162.178 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is vague in several ways.
First, is the dated language. 11 years ago, it would have been correct to say, "To date, there has not been an African American president of the United States." Had that been added to the article, it would have been wrong on January 20, 2009. Were it still in the article, it would have been wrong for 9 years now. Better would be, "As of July 2007…"
"Probably" screams that this is likely original research.
Next up would be "most successful". Presumably, this is referring to highest charting on -- um -- pick a chart. Maybe it's the Billboard 200, maybe it means in the UK or Brazil or some kind of combination of various charts from various countries. Or maybe it's referring to gross sales, in number of copies. Or in gross dollars. Or profit. Maybe it means airplay. Perhaps it was intended to establish the band as a pop act and did that. Who knows? Better would be "highest charting single in the United States."
I'm not sure what is being established by calling it a "commercial composition". It seems to mean recordings offered for sale. I'm not really aware of Steinman having any particularly notable non-profit or private compositions. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The video[edit]

Anyone care to add a section on the video for this song? I'd love to know what the video is supposed to be about - I couldn't make any sense of it. 69.204.5.228 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The video is both excellent and notable - and it makes perfect sense to me but I couldn't explain it! DuncanHill (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, The explanation is X rated. The song is about sex... her sex life.. an affair not a daytime partnership. Its about "falling apart" ... "I need you tonight". "once i had light in my life, now I have love in the dark". Now she has SEX in the dark, clearly. The video indicates the senior boys as the object of her desire.There is a junior boy in the video ... where its revealed she is the teacher... As for the funny eyes ... its a reference to futureworld, the page already directs you to have a look.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futureworld ... those boys have been drugged .. induced... I can explain the ninja's. ninja's come for a purpose don't they. they dont dilly dally. they come for one purpose and one purpose only... its a metaphore for boys who really want to... with her. 202.92.40.8 (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I always thought the boys' glowing eyes were a reference to Village of the Damned. The literal video version of the song picks up on it (subtly, though). And that was what everyone immediately thought about when the video was first out (Besides "WTF"? of course ... I highly recommend that literal video version; that video has been waiting for a quarter-century for somebody to do that). Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to mention the new remake of it? Just search youtube for "Total eclipse of the heart literal video". --24.250.239.161 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on the video[edit]

Yeah, I was actually wondering, there's this internet meme called literal music videos, and the literal version of this song by David A. Scott is probably one of the most popular and highly acclaimed of these types of videos. Wikipedia has an article about the meme, as I linked above, with several citations directing to or mentioning the video's coverage by various national news sources. So I'm putting the question out there, should we mention the literal video version on this page? I'm not saying we should, but just want to make sure the issue is addressed. 71.231.76.242 (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I saw it is mentioned on this article!! Should look more closely before I speak, I guess. Good, then, just keep it as it is, it's certainly worth mention (a great video, might I add). 71.231.76.242 (talk)

Brak (Cartoon Network) version[edit]

YouTube clip Not sure when this was done. (I had forgotten how much I hate this song until I stumbled across this clip the other day...) Probably from The Brak Show, 2000-2003. Black Max (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Black Max[reply]

Charts[edit]

I need help with finding South African charts for this song. I'm fine with the Template:Singlechart, but there's no clear way to insert or find a South African singles chart. Can anyone help me out?? I also need to find Canadian Adult Contemporary if that's possible. Bonnietylersave (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link for both of these charts. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Battlefield 4[edit]

Should it be noted in the article that this song will be in Battlefield 4? It was featured in the 17 minute reveal video, which was gameplay of a story mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.86.139 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics link[edit]

Lyrics link leads to wrong semi pornographic lyrics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.108.237 (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No information about song[edit]

At present, this article contains virtually no information about the song itself (e.g., descriptions of its music or lyrics). AJD (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone would object to you being bold and adding some, provided it's reliably sourced. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do in terms of finding sources for this kind of content. It's about time the technical musical side of the song was addressed in the article. Bonnietylersave (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance scale missing?[edit]

Usually on a song's talk page you find the class rating (in this case at the time of posting, Start Class), and a rating on the Importance Scale; "low", "mid", "high". Why is it not the case for this song? Bonnietylersave (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it's rated at the top. DonIago (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, maybe it's my eyes?! Strange. All I see is the box stating that it's in the scope of WikiProject Songs, and rated. Start-Class on the quality scale, without the Importance Scale. For an example, see this talk page :) Bonnietylersave (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - WikiProject Songs doesn't USE an importance scale 17:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Another mystery solved. :) DonIago (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Welsh" singer and not "British" singer?[edit]

Does the article really need to be so specific as to say she's Welsh in the first sentence? Wouldn't simply saying she's "British" suffice? More people around the world are familiar with the UK/Britain than Wales. If I were to go to an article on a musician born in California USA, the article would say "American" singer, not "Californian" singer.MisterZed (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have toyed around with this for years on Wikipedia. All other Welsh stars seem to have articles citing them as Welsh singers, not British singers, plus the fact that there has occasionally been publication errors stating that Tyler is Scottish. Refer to Shirley Bassey and her related singles and songs, and also Tom Jones (singer). I think it should be kept the same, but further discussion from others is welcome. Bonnietylersave (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

certified platinum in 2001 != 2 million copies shipped[edit]

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding among editors of this article about what RIAA re-certifications following the lowering of standards for singles certifications in 1989 represents. Let me try to explain.

"Total Eclipse of the Heart" (the Bonnie Tyler recording) was certified gold in 1983. At the time, the gold certification was awarded to singles that had shipped a million copies. The single shipped a million; everyone seems to agree on that.

It was certified platinum in 2001. At this point, platinum certifications were awarded to singles that had shipped a million. In other words, the requirement was the same as the requirement it had met to be certified gold in 1983. That's because, as mentioned earlier, the requirements were revised to be slightly more lenient in 1989 to reflect the shifting realities of the singles business at the time, which had been in a steep decline.

It might be tempting, even reasonable, to assume, because the single came out prior to the revision of the standards, that a platinum certification, even awarded in 2001, signifies that it met the old standard for platinum (two million copies shipped) rather than the new. Indeed, the shipments figure that the Certification Table Entry template autogenerates seems to be based on "relyear" rather than "certyear." However, this is flat-out incorrect. As clearly stated by Billboard's Chart Beat columnist at the time Paul Grein here, all singles that had been certified gold prior to 1989 were eligible for platinum status right away upon the revision of the rules, without having to sell even one more copy. Of course, this did not mean that all prior gold-singles were instantly re-awarded platinum, because, as always, certifications are only awarded after the record label requests it.

If you do an advanced search on the RIAA's database for singles released before 1989 earning their platinum certification, you'll find a surprising number of them doing so. In fact, I see that 27 singles released before 1989 that had previously been certified gold were re-certified platinum between 1998 and 2002. Many of them came out in the early 70s and mid-to-late 60s. Does that mean that all these singles were somehow finally crossing the two million mark? No. It's actually highly unlikely that anything more than a negligible number of each of these singles was even still retail-available -- unlike with albums, labels didn't replenish stock for singles indefinitely! More often, they actually DELETED singles from retail, meaning they would decline to allow retailers to order more stock of that single and cease to manufacture more copies. Clearly, these old singles were not gradually creeping towards another million having been shipped. The only reasonable explanation is what Grein's article points out -- that they were simply eligible for re-certification as platinum based on the same shipments data they had amassed during their peak popularity, and that the labels had simply requested the re-certification around that time. These singles, including "Total Eclipse of the Heart," have sold one million, not two million, copies. Mmrsofgreen (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This still doesn't explain the platinum 7" that was manufactured by the RIAA in 1983, which states "To commemorate the sale of more than 2,000,000 copies of the Columbia Records single record Total Eclipse of the Heart" [3] Tyler keeps all of her certifications on display in her house. I will try to find out what statistic is found on her platinum disc at home, and at what date she received it. Bonnietylersave (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genre with reference[edit]

After so many anonymous edits, and people trying to add a genre to the infobox, I think it's worth discussing on this page. Does anyone have any suggestions on publications to search for, or other sources, that could be used as a reference for the song's genre? Bonnietylersave (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the anonymous IP adresses which tried to add unsourced genres seem to be used by a previously blocked user called Lam Thuy Van (aka the "soft rock vandal from Vietnam") and I'm not sure adding a sourced genre will solve the problem. The best thing to do would be to ask for another semi-protection (or to block the IP adress which is currently genre warring over this article). Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was used in a movie...[edit]

...several, in fact, along with a number of TV shows. This is common and is seldom notable. Notable uses would include those that, for example, brought a long-dormant song back to the charts. More likely would be the use of the song in a film where the film in some significant way change perception of the song, as discussed in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 19:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serf3469, Please discuss the issue here. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Total Eclipse of the Heart. 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.

☒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) 19:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Total Eclipse of the Heart. 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: 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) 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Dodd's career[edit]

Does anyone know whether he is the co-lead vocalist or co-vocalist in this song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Changes[edit]

I'd like to propose a few changes to this article but feel it would be ideal to open up a discussion first:

  • Charts: Just use one table for all peak positions (1983–2019) rather than a separate table for re-entries. Instead we could introduce a "Chart performance" section with text describing the song's trajectory on certain national charts, where relevant. This would provide an opportunity to explain why the song has experienced certain re-entries (such as the 2017 eclipse).
  • Infobox Track Length: Just include the original 1983 album and single lengths and not all of Tyler's re-recordings.

Please feel free to add comments, agreements or objections. Skyrack95 (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Dodd the featured artist?[edit]

Why isn't Rory Dodd a featured artist in this song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Dodd is credited for "featured vocals" on this recording, and this information is listed as such in the "Credits and personnel" section of the article. Skyrack95 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination[edit]

This article was nominated in December by Delqa, who appears not to have edited the article. Given that the first step of a good article nomination instructs that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination", I wanted to check in with those who watch this page and/or have contributed to the article, to make sure that the nomination is appropriate. Normally I would just revert the nomination, but given that it's been sitting for nearly two months, thought I would ask here first. Pinging Hiddenstranger in particular, given recent large edits to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been editing and watching this page for a few years. Thanks for dropping in. I have some concerns about the referencing and page structure, but if other editors feel that the article has GA potential then I'd be happy to work on it. Synthwave.94 has been looking after this article for a long time too and may be able to advise. Skyrack95 (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Total Eclipse of the Heart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


{{in progress}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this is a solid start to the article, but it's got some big issues throughout that keep it from meeting GA requirements at this point. Comments below:

  • General:
    • Overall, I don't think this meets the necessary broadness quality needed for a good article. This is a very popular song of the 80s, and yet there's very little in the way of critical reception or impact, and the development section is disjointed and poorly organized. Judging by the state of the article, you would assume most of the cover versions are actually more important, given how much time is given to them, and things start veering into trivia throughout (mentioning it's sung in Old School—side note, is it really supposed to be the cover version that the character is singing, versus the original?)
  • Prose:
    • The prose needs some TLC to get to GA quality. Start off with the lead, where this is 50+ word set of ideas glommed into one sentence: In the United States, the single spent four weeks at the top of the charts, keeping another Steinman penned song "Making Love Out of Nothing at All" by Air Supply from reaching the top spot (a song Tyler would later cover in 1995),[5] and it was Billboard's number-six song of the year for 1983. Throughout awkward phrasing and run-on sentences make the article difficult to read.
    • Steinman believed that CBS were expecting him to write something similar to "It's a Heartache", —this is the first time CBS is mentioned, without explanation.
    • There's no justification for the inclusion of song lyrics in the "background and writing" section of the Kareen Antonn version.
  • Media:
  • References:
    • There are sections throughout that are apparently unreferenced despite making claims that need to be verified, for example, the "Duet version with Kareen Antonn" or the subsequent music video section; lines throughout (A solo version of the recording was released on her studio album Wings the following year., etc.)
    • There's a source tag on 154, which as a small circular is probably unreliable.
    • Ref 8 is to Metro and should be replaced with something better than a tabloid.
    • Ref 85 (AIRA Charts) links to Dropbox.
    • Ref 145 is to blogspot, unreliable.
    • There's an issue seen throughout the article of using primary sources in a way that I think eschews best practices, for example Ref 15 would be better replaced by a print source rather than some random channel's video of a primary source (since that would demonstrate the event's notability.) Ditto for 100, 111, 143, etc.
    • What makes eMpTyV (158), Rock.co.za (80), Top-france.fr (78), Off the Post (27), MuzHit (115), Ice.spirit.free.fr (150) reliable sources?

Given the issues, I'm failing the GAN presently. I recommend refocusing on sourcing and trimming/copyediting what's there after you've done a deeper dive into sourcing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Total_Eclipse_of_the_Heart&oldid=1210744188"