Talk:Every Breath You Take

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

Chords[edit]

Does anybody recognized that the cords are the same like " Stand by me" from Ben E. King

Lyrics[edit]

maybe someone could add the lyrics to the page?? or is that against the copyright perhaps?

That would indeed be a copyright violation. Tuf-Kat 14:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
How about if someone adds a link to a page with the lyrics of this song, that would be fine, right? Carlos 3:03, Oct 28, 2005 (UTC)My talk
Yes, I'll do that. -- Thorpe talk 11:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different meaning of song[edit]

Okay, I removed it before because there seemed to be so much proof this guy's a stalker, but I checked again: My mom remembered seeing Sting on an interview, saying that he wrote this song to try to get his wife to stop smoking. (While in hindsight this may have been a cover) I was hoping someone else could speak up if they remember this. I'll keep looking for online sources. - A.J. 16:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! I recall seeing a clip of him on VH1 (honestly at this point who can remember what any clip on there was on, show-wise) where he talked about it being about a stalker, or at least they did, and then he was shown in interview. He said something to the effect of "People come up to me all the time and say, 'Oh we got married to your song!' and I always say, 'Er, good luck!'" Which certainly pretty much goes to prove that that's the intended meaning. FangsFirst 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest edit on this subject vehemently insists that the song isn't about a stalker, without offering a citation to back up the claim. Calling it "self-evident" is no good, since obviously it isn't evident to many people. Without a reliable source, the article should simply present the three predominant interpretations (straightforward & devoted love song, heartbroken love song, stalker song) with perhaps some notes about each interpretation. Bradd 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Rolling Stone list of the "Immortals" in music, under the section for the Police, they say it is. The Person Who Is Strange 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FangsFirst is correct! I have the same interview taped and the quote that FangsFirst listed is exact. Sting went on to say in the interview that it is a creepy song, covered up with a beautiful yet melancholy melody, which is why people are so thrown by it's meaning and have turned it into a love song. --ATaylor0927 09:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the clear lyrics, despite the comments of Sting, despite the online debate, some people continue to maintain (even in 2015) that this song has nothing to do with stalking. And yet, far from some sweet love song - it is clearly a dark comment about dangerous people out there. Oh, can't some of them see, this songs lyrics do not belong to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.225.45 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see the article itslf doesn't use the words "stalking" or "stalker", although they occur repeatedly on this talk page (which I expect few readers ever go to). The Dutch-language version of the article, at least, comes right out and says it, with a link straight to the Wikipedia article on stalking. I'm also surprised to find that anyone could ever have seen this as an innocent love song. For my part, I've always had a very uncomfortable feeling about the lyrics - and, for what it's worth, I'm a man.188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For such a claim, we would need a reliable source. Vague memories of an interview are not a reliable source. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Pitney[edit]

Do we have a reference to the song being based on every breath I take? It seems a bit of a bold statement to make without a footnote.--Shadebug 14:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mom said the song was about a school kid stalking his teacher i guess looking through her window and the song follows every move you make every step you take i'll be watching you basically i think sting might've known someone or read something about this i mean the person who's being stalked might've been someone of sting's own blood like his mother or something not really sure myself but it seems like a decent guess right - 205.188.116.133 01:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your mom is confusing "Don't Stand So Close to Me" with "Every Breath You Take." "Don't Stand So Close to Me" is about a student/teacher teacher/student crush or whatever you want to call it. In Sting's autobiography, he states that "Every Breath You Take" is about obsessive love and how love can be so overwhelming and consume you, like a stalker. --ATaylor0927 09:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever listened to "Every Breath I Take"? It sounds a lot like Sting's song and the message is pretty frickin' similar. Just listening to the song brought us here to find out whether anybody had anymore info on it. I think this speculation should be included in the body of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.224.66 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Some very non-neutral comments in here, the phrases "blockbuster album", and "And this lack of rhythmic variation (which in other songs may be considered boring), is actually what gives the song its compellingly hypnotic atmosphere and matches the song's lyrics perfectly." spring to mind.

Doctor Sinister 23:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Most of this article is pretty factual, but there are some sentences that sound much more like a review than an encyclopedia entry.

Royalties[edit]

Damn, in theory someone in Mali would have to work every day for 500 years to get the amount of money sting gets of this song ALONE in 3 months. Superdude99 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that 625 years, seeing how the averege daily wage is 0,75 cents, what is wrong with this world??? Superdude99 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economically speaking, that statement makes absolutely no sense!
There is not some massive "world cash pot" from which Sting and the Malian individuals are given grossly differing percentages. There is worldwide demand for this song which is why Sting gets lots of money for it, whereas Mali's tribal and nomadic demography does not suit economic analysis via standard western economic principles (such as supply and demand). Therefore when that comparison is attempted, the amount of money the average Malian appears to make compared to Sting is extremely small, however, the reality is that you simply cannot compare the two with an accuracy.
This isn't to deny the poverty of many Malians but under such an analysis, many Amazonian tribes would probably have to work for thousands of years to make what Sting makes in a month, however most Amazonian tribes have far less real "poverty" (and more importantly "desolation") than Mali tribes. Canderra 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical Influence[edit]

The section is unencyclopedic. First off - unless you can find Sting or some credible source saying that Sting was inspired by that song, it is just speculation.

Secondly - every similarity listed about that song is nothing spectacular. First off - the whole "every breath you take" thing is a cliche, and a popular one at that. Even so, the idea is not some complex idea that no one else had, before I made the edit - there were already two songs that were stated to use that cliche. The point with cliches is that you can't call every prior use of a cliche an influence.

Now the chord progression - anyone who knows anything about music knows that I-vi-IV-V chord progression is incredibly common. It isn't surprising that two songs that happen to use a similar lyric motif would have the same chord progression seeing how both songs are both tonal in the western tradition. And even the chords being played out in an arpeggio is not surprising seeing how a good chunk of music does that to make it sound more complex than it already is.

Simply put - unless somebody presents either Sting saying it, or some credible source saying it, it is unencyclopedic and completely unremarkable. Should we go and simply put every song out there that uses a I-vi-IV-V chord progression in that list as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --THollan 05:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The reason I added this section back is that the guitar riffs in these songs are *not* all that incredibly common, and are very similar. (They're based on arpeggiation, but vary from it in similar ways.) I think the same thing goes for the lyrics: find me another song that replicates two full lines from this one with only a switch in pronouns! All of these things put together -- similar lyric, same chord progression, similar riffs, extreme likelihood that The Police were aware of the Led Zeppelin cut, and the fact that a classic rock band immitating reggae would have been particularly interesting to The Police -- make for a similarity that I noticed independantly of the original author of that section. Find me another song with any two of the above traits in common with *either* song!

I can agree that this section is somewhat unencyclopedic, though, to the extent that almost no one else has called this out, so there's no source to point to. On the other hand, much of this is just direct observation, and I don't think it would be particularly unencyclopedic to just point out an interesting similarity without stating that it is intentional.

Gene Pitney - "Every Step I Take." And I quote the lyrics "Only with every little breath I take, only with every little step I make." Secondly, I listened to the Led Zeppelin song in question, and I say it is a pretty big stretch to say that it is an obvious influence on the Police song. Two songs using the same lyrical cliche (Billy Joel has a song with the cliche in the title), employing the same very basic chord structure (honestly, the number of songs with I-vi-IV-V chord progressions is incredibly high, seeing how that is how you are supposed to progress chords) and a similar style of playing those chords is not quite the stretch you make it out to be. Granted, since the Police song, there haven't been that many big songs that employee that particular cliche, but that's just sort of because Sting made it his own. If you take any two songs, you can find a number of similarities between them just because tonal music has certain rules that are typically followed. Also, just because Led Zeppelin was huge does not mean that the Police listened to them or would have been following their music very closely (yes, it is possible that Sting might have felt the influence in a subconscious manner, but it would be impossible to prove). Basically, because it has no citation, and the claim that is being made is not obvious and is even pretty doubtful when one takes into consideration all the evidence, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. "Every Breath You Take" is a pretty basic song, employing a cliche that has been used before by at least two other songs that we've documented. Here's a tip - chord progressions are not similarities. If melodically, the songs were similar, then you might have had an argument. But two songs with very different melodies and rhythms and vastly different lyrics (they both make use of the same cliche, but are barely similar past that point) are not quite the obvious conclusion that would make it okay to lack a citation. --THollan 17:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, you're obnoxious. I have a pretty good idea of how common this chord progression is, and I've played both of these guitar riffs! Maybe this isn't the kind of thing that belongs in an article without a citation, fine. But your (frankly, wrong) opinion about the nature of this similarity would be a lot easier to listen to if you didn't assume you're the expert on something that both the original author of that section and I evidently know more about than you do. Thanks for the lecture!

I'm sorry if my tone comes off as obnoxious, but frankly, you have shown me little to convince me that the claim about "D'yer Mak'er" is an obvious influence on "Every Breath You Take." Basically, if you object to it being taken out, prove me wrong. Present me with reasons, don't just call me obnoxious and then say I'm wrong. Granted, I am not an expert on either the music of the Police or Led Zeppelin, but from my listening experiences, the similarity isn't just striking. Yes, there are similarities, but these seem more secondary to the song than an intentional homage to the track. But if I'm wrong, prove me wrong. All I'm saying is that the evidence presented was nothing more than a bunch of similarities that can be found in a large group of music - especially if you consider that the Police was heavily influenced by reggae and Led was doing a reggae song. It isn't notable that both songs have the same chord progression, and the lyrics are a standard cliche. I don't intend to make myself sound like an expert on the music of Led Zeppelin, since I don't own any of their albums nor have I listened to more than a handful of songs by them. But since I'm wrong - prove me wrong. Show me your evidence, and if I can't come up with a logical argument, then I will gladly admit that I am wrong, and if I can present an argument, I will present it to you. That's all I'm asking - prove me wrong. --THollan 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I added the lyrics part, and the other guy added the chord pattern, which I had not noticed but it is indeed a fact. You are arguing "ok the line is a cliche, and seperately the chord pattern is a common one" but taken together, this is quite a coincidence. Not only that, EBYT copies TWO lines of the Zep song, and takes one as its title. In my mind, that's as blatant as Harrison's ripping off James Taylor's "Something in the Way She Moves". I consider your high-handed deletion of very relevant and valid facts about the song rather presumptuous. You could have at least asked for some discussion.

I re-added it. You "show or convince ME" it's NOT. I think we've shown quite a bit of evidence that it WAS influenced, if not ripped off wholesale, from the Led Zep song.

First off, sign your comments. Secondly, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TONAL MUSIC? I've explained this twice before, but I will do it again. I-vi-IV-V chord progressions are incredibly common. Essentially, if we follow the rules exactly, the 1 chord can only go to either 6 or 4. If it goes to 6, it HAS to go to 4. 4 can go to either 2 or 5. Now, granted, rock and roll does do variations on this rule, such as doing I-IV-vi-V like "She Drives Me Crazy", but that is because a lot of rock and roll doesn't follow the rules of tonal music exactly (a big case is you can find a lot of rock music going from V-IV, which is not acceptable under the strict interpretation of the rules of tonal music). And hey, check out this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50s_Progression. So I've dis-proven the chord progression.
Now, onto the lyrics. Well, first off, according to the rules of wikipedia - "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." Basically, that conclusion comes from some random person on the internet. Last I checked, some random person on the internet is not a "reliable source," seeing how we have no way of knowing how much you know about music. But I digress. Here, listen to Gene Pitney's "Every Breath I Take." Now, if I'm not mistaken, the titles are almost EXACTLY the same. More than you can say for "D'yer Ma'ker." Now, looking at the lyrics for "D'yer Ma'ker," the song is incredibly different to "Every Breath You Take." Yes, there are two lines that are somewhat similar, but considering how I documented one other song that uses those lines (or something very close to it), it really means nothing. I mean, I could say "Baby, Please Don't Go" by Van Morrison influenced hundreds of thousands of songs, including "D'yer Ma'ker," but that would be silly. Now, finally, let's consider that All Music Guide has reviews for both songs. Now, in the "Every Breath You Take" review, they don't mention "D'yer Ma'ker" nor in the "D'yer Ma'ker" review do they mention "Every Breath You Take." Now, seeing how Led Zeppelin is one of the most important bands in rock and roll and "Every Breath You Take" is one of the most important songs to come out of the 80s, I would imagine that if one was an influence on the other, surely it would be mention by these EXPERTS.
So in conclusion, the claim goes. I'm deleting it because the rules of Wikipedia state explicitly that "encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source," and there is not obvious (as I have provided evidence for) nor are you a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Basically, the claim "D'yer Ma'ker" influenced "Every Breath You Take" is built upon nonexistent evidence built up by misunderstanding of common musical elements and expanding on coincidental lyrical similarities - UNLESS you can provide a reliable source to claim otherwise. So basically, prove me wrong. Tell me why that claim should be in an encyclopedia. --THollan 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Boy, you credit youself with being the be-all, end-all and know it all of music and you use a phrase like "a 50's chord pattern". Yeah, and it was never used before nor since. Do YOU know anything about tonal music? Also, 12 and 8 bar blues patterns existed well before the 50's. Finally, its not one person's opinion. Its a fact it shares a marked resemblance in both lyrics and structure, as well as playing technique. In fact, it appears to be a straight "lift", you know that one mister expert? I think its entirely valid and informational to mention the fact. You seem to be some kind of rabid Sting fan who doesn't want his idol's rep besmirched. Its relevant, its informational and its true. The song has striking similarities to Dyer Maker, even you don't deny it. You want to have an edit war until its locked, fine. Or, all interested parties could compromise on a wording that satisfies the standards and includes all pertinent information. Raphaelaarchon 17:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I have written? Did you take the time to comprehend what I have written? Did you think about your counter-argument? Did you read what you have written? I strongly doubt you have, seeing how your last post makes absolutely no sense in reference to anything I have said. Rather than refuting my argument, you go and attack me.
First off, I never considered myself the "be-all, end-all and know it all of music" nor did I ever use a phrase like "50's chord pattern." If you actually read what I wrote, I linked you to an article called "50's Chord Progression." In your edit, you said "Both lyrically and musically, (chord pattern as well as in playing technique)" which makes me seriously wonder if you know anything about music. First off, playing the chords by using an appregio is not uncommon, in fact - it is a trick a lot of musicians use to fill in the blank time between chords. Also, seeing how the songs sound completely different, I wouldn't say it is a "striking" similarity.
But I'm not going to show you why you are wrong any further. I am going to tell you something. It is not "relevant" because it is not true. Thus it is not "informational." You have shown no evidence for why it would be true. You have no reliable source. And it clearly isn't some obvious fact or conclusion like "The sky is blue." Nor is it a straight lift, SEEING HOW THE LYRICS, MELODY, AND THEME OF THE SONG ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT except for 8 words. Please don't add it back in without presenting an attribution for it. I will not compromise on the wording because you can not give me an attribution to a reliable source for your claim. You may feel it resembles the song - fine. But that is a mere opinion, and one that isn't very well sound, or at least, you haven't presented me with the evidence. If you want say a song resembles another, especially by two popular bands, without being able to provide a source for that claim, then you have to admit that your claim doesn't have a lot of ground to stand on. And I am not a fan of Sting. Nor would I see someone being influenced or inspired by someone else a huge tragedy. Morrissey has lifted lines from many poets and playwrights, and I like his music all the same.
So if you are going to respond to me, please don't insult me. Read what I have written. Read my arguments and try to understand them. Do not simply go and shoot back at me with some half-cocked insult and then try and prove me wrong on things I have never said. It doesn't help your cause. If you need clarification, ask. Look, just present me with more evidence than the fact that two lines based off of a cliche between two songs are similar. Give me evidence, not logical fallacies the next time you want to debate me on this fact. And if you can, prove me wrong. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if you give me evidence to state that I am wrong. But don't insult me and then try and prove me wrong on points I never brought up. So in summation, either prove me wrong, or drop this argument. --THollan 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Heh, you seem to get off on insulting my supposed lack of musical knowledge. I'm not going to bother listing my credentials. But you show a great amount of ignorance with your "50's chord patterns" crap. Those cadences were used in classical music centuries before Fat Domino strung them together. I believe what I and others have added is valid. I'll continue to debate and change that until you agree to compromise. I don't see where you are the emporer of icecream and your lame opinion trumps everyone else's. You want to have a childish edit battle, fine, I'm online a lot. Hopefully a moderator will step in and rule on this, because you are too childish and egomaniacal to even debate. And, no, I don't take the time to read your overlong, verbose, repetitive, inane, specious and rather vain and condescending posts. I don't care to read 10 paragraphs at a time which basically insult me and brag about what a great musical mind you are. The assertations are valid. You have failed to convince me (and the other guy posting who originally added the part about the playing technique and chord pattern). Rock on.

Well, I'm glad to see that you don't read my posts. So, how can I possibly convince you if you refuse to listen to me? But please, tell me where I said anything that implied that Fat Domino used those cadences. I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Of course, had you actually read my posts instead of trying to insult me, you might not have said something so absolutely pointless to the discussion. So, because you refuse to read what I have written before, I will give you a point by point cliff-notes guide to my argument.
My Argument.
I - The chord progression is incredibly common and thus is not notable.
II - The chords being played out in appregios mean nothing, seeing how that is commonly used to fill out the chords.
III - The lyrical similarities are found in two other songs, The Hassles (Billy Joel's old band) had "Every Step I Take (Every Move I Make)," which is an incredibly similar title, don't you agree? Gene Pitney's "Every Breath I Take" is also another song with the lyrical similarities. Makes "D'yer Ma'ker" look like a coincidence.
IV - You have provided no source. Simply put, without a source, it is original research at best. The rules of Wikipedia state specifically that "content must be attributable to a reliable source." Simply put, some random internet user is not a reliable source for information.
V - The songs are very different in terms of lyrics and melody.
Now, please, in your next post, do not insult me. I haven't insulted you intentionally, and if I have, I apologized. However, I can hope that you will keep it civil in future posts, and if you disagree with me, please, by all means, prove me wrong. Tell me where I am wrong in my claims and assertions if you find fault with them.
PS - You haven't debated me. You have simply contradicted me. Debate implies that you would have form a counter-argument to my argument, but instead you have simply said "No, I don't believe you" and then go and insult me and then go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with my argument. --THollan 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One final thing. I did a quick Yahoo search on the topic, just in case there was a reliable source I missed. The first one - http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22D%27yer+Ma%27ker%22+%2B+%22Every+Breath+You+Take%22&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 - presented nothing but play lists and the like. The second one (suggesting D'yer Maker) http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22D%27yer+Maker%22+%2B+%22Every+Breath+You+Take%22&sp=1&fr2=sp-bottom&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&ei=UTF-8&SpellState=n-2337253515_q-iAIYO%2FNcTY3kFrQbzTLJ5AAAAA%40%40 gave me the same results. Which is, unless you actually start providing arguments instead of insults, is the final nail in the coffin for the argument "D'yer Ma'ker" is an obvious influence on "Every Breath You Take." --THollan 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


And you are simply gain-saying both me and the other individual who posted. I'm not convinced. I think its valid and important information, and should be included. I'll continue to revert your vandalism of factual information with which you disagree until the powers-that-be make the final judgement. I won't be intimidated by your bullying tactics or your high-handed deletion of other members' contributions. Just who the heck do you think you are, anyway?

Either the insults stop now, or I will be forced to get a third party involved on this. I'll state it clearly - any one can edit wikipedia, so I think I can change the works of a few editors seeing how that is the design of Wikipedia. I have presented arguments, I have acted civil, and you have in turned insulted me and continued to vandalized the page. And I consider it vandalism, seeing how you have no citation, you refuse to present any arguments for it, and I have laid out an argument that presents why this information should not be included. I request that it stops, and that we end this now. The only further communication I want to have on this subject is either evidence that you are right, or an apology for your behavior. That is it. It STOPS NOW. --THollan 22:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one insulting people, with your repeated accusations that we have no musical knowledge and bragging about your own. You are the one vandalizing the page. You are the one being condescending and uncompromising. I will continue to revert my and the other guy's contributions. You can threaten all you like. Anyone reading the above will see YOU are the one insulting people's intelligence and knowledge, not me.

I am the one insulting people here? Let me provide you with a few quotes.
  • I won't be intimidated by your bullying tactics or your high-handed deletion of other members' contributions. Just who the heck do you think you are, anyway?
  • But you show a great amount of ignorance with your "50's chord patterns" crap.
  • Hopefully a moderator will step in and rule on this, because you are too childish and egomaniacal to even debate
  • Boy, you credit youself with being the be-all, end-all and know it all of music and you use a phrase like "a 50's chord pattern". Yeah, and it was never used before nor since.
  • I consider your high-handed deletion of very relevant and valid facts about the song rather presumptuous.
Now I will admit that I should have not said "DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT TONAL MUSIC?" but aside from that, I have not insulted you. I recently left you a message on your talk page, and I hope that this will be the end of it. Please, stop. After this, I will get a moderator involved. --THollan 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, and you insulted me, slandered me and threatened me in that message as well. By all means call in a moderator. Just because I dont redundantly and verbosely restate my argument in huge posts like you do doesn't mean I (or the other poster who added the musical parts) don't have a point, and you also made several references insinuating neither of us know anything about music, and you presumably know all. You began this. The page was fine as it was before you started vandalizing it.


Woo Gentlemen please. Time out! Both of you, go and have a cup of tea, or whatever. Do not edit this page again until you are sure you are no longer angry. There is no need for any of this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'yer Ma'ker[edit]

I feel honestly that the "D'yer Ma'ker" comment currently has no place in Wikipedia since there is no citation for it, and a search on Yahoo presented no articles linking the two together. The lack of reputable sources for it alone is enough that it does not belong on the Wikipedia page. --THollan 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The wikipedia policy NOR isn't really up for debate especially when we are dealing with a BLP. If you think the preceding phrase is pure speculation then why not remove both. Alternativly you could try and come up with some references. Do not let your dislike of the messanger blind you to the message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If they are self evident then surely, somewhere, someone else will have noticed that? In a book or in the music press? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I propose a compromise. Obviously I and the unregged contributor feel strongly about our assertation, as Thollan does about his. How about we agree to remove it from the main article and include it in TRIVIA, which seems to have a looser criteria for what is valid, especially looking at the entries already there- most are not even sourced. This can still be debated in discussion, but in the mean time I'm willing to quit this back and forth editing if we can just leave it in the less important status of TRIVIA rather than the main article. I feel this is fair, within the bounds of Wiki protocol and I have also sourced the stuff as well as I can, the viewer can decide if the evidence holds.

Also, if a moderator or a consensus of members decides the information is not even suitable for TRIVIA, I'll not contest its removal. The entire problem here, as I see it, and as the unregged user at 72.xxx.xxx above seems to say, was Thollan's pre-emptive removal of stuff without debate. Things were said, tempers flared and that was inappropriate, maybe things were taken the wrong way by both sides, but I feel this is a fair compromise until we can get either a ruling or a consensus on this subject.

Waiting for thoughts on this solution. In the meantime, I'll remove it myself from the main article and put it in TRIVIA. I think users take TRIVIA entries with a grain of salt anyway. They are titbits of interest, not canonical data, in most cases.

I still have reservations about the paragraph purporting to describe the motivations for writing the song and what it is supposedly about, the linked "notes" do not address this at all.Raphaelaarchon 02:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quote from the source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the similarity of the "Every breath/Every move" couplets has long amused me, I can't agree that EBYT has a "striking resemblance" to DM. The two songs have different structures (compound AABA form vs verse-chorus form), moods (sinister vs schmaltzy), and inspirations (a failing relationship vs a joke). Even the points of similarity don't stand up very well to scrutiny. For example, the article points out similarity in chord progression (the 50's progression) and technique (arpeggio chords). However, the matching lyrics appear at different points in the chord progression, and the arpeggios are far more intricate in EBYT than they are in the simple, jokey D'yer Mak'er. Therefore, I don't believe that the current sources support the claim made. (Furthermore, I dislike the current wording, which uses nonstandard terminology like "chord pattern" and possibly POV judgments like "striking resemblance.") Bradd 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sources given for the claim only describe the songs separately; they do not support the claim without first performing new analysis. That's a WP:NOR problem, specifically WP:SYN. I recommend removal of the claim because of this and other reasons given above. Bradd 03:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Every Breath You Take single cover.png[edit]

Image:Every Breath You Take single cover.png 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation/vocals[edit]

1) Do Copeland and Summers actually provide backup vocals? I'm under the impression everything was done by Sting, like all their other songs.

2) I'm skeptical about the "four violinists" part, and feel like whoever added that got the idea from the music video.72.234.5.188 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, I am skeptical of the whole description of the instrumentation. Speaking as a professional musician, the strings in the original studio recording are clearly played by synthesizer. Additionally, I'm fairly certain that Sting is playing electric bass guitar, not double bass. But being that I have no published sources to cite this from, and am simply using my ears, I'm not inclined to go in and change it. If someone could find a source, that would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.83.63 (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. For future reference, published sources are not needed to correct an unreferenced and obviously false statement. After all, if an editor put false information there without a source, why should you need a source to put in the correct information?
And yeah, I don't know what the early editors of the articles on the Police were thinking when they put down those personnel credits. They honestly can't tell the difference between Sting's vocals and Andy Summers's? Jeez. Apparently the role of lead singer is even more overrated than I thought; judging by these articles, you could replace the likes of Sting, Peter Gabriel, and Van Morrison with random people off the street and most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference!--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Be Missing You - Puff Daddy and Faith Evans[edit]

seems a glaring omission in the covers and samples section, and the fact Sting owns 100% of the publishing royalties after their failure to seek permission to use the sample81.132.58.77 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Every Breath You Take. 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) 20:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Every Breath You Take. 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) 20:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Beato[edit]

The producer Rick Beato discussed this song with the individual instrument tracks. This track list includes a vocal "vx Scratch" track which doesn't appear in the song, with filler lyrics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VKucZreGwI Webhat (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable trivia. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surveillance, really??[edit]

I understand the cute “logic” behind the surveillance idea of that Marx guy mentioned in the article. And maybe it even would make sense to have it in there, if the article had some section like “post factum interpretations” or “alternative meanings”. But right now it is in the same section that talks about the actual meaning of the song, meant by its author. I believe the whole surveillance part should be removed from there. Stansult (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piano part[edit]

I don't have access to the book that is cited, Behind The Boards: The Making of Rock'N'Roll's Greatest Records Revealed. For the other two sources, I don't think there's a huge discrepancy between the Studio Sound article and the Sound on Sound article. I feel the latter provides additional detail that complements the shorter mention in the first article. Based on these two articles, I think the description can be condensed into a shorter one where Sting played some melody lines on the piano, and Padgham collaborated with him to come up with the final part. However can anyone with access to Behind the Boards describe what it says? isaacl (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments? If not, then I plan to proceed with the proposed condensing of text. isaacl (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the relevant passage from Behind the Boards on Google book search, and it is essentially the same as in the Sound on Sound article. isaacl (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have condensed the text. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Tint[edit]

The article says that the video was tinted navy blue, but the version on The Police's official YouTube channel is black and white, and most articles about the video describe it as being in black and white. A bit of Googling suggests that Top of the Pops in the UK showed it with a blue tint, and my personal recollection is that it was sepia. Were there different versions, or was the colour tint a whim of whichever channel was broadcasting it? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piano part, revisited[edit]

Regarding this edit: as I discussed earlier, I disagree with the interpretation that either the Sound on Sound article or the Studio Sound article are attributing sole credit for the piano accompaniment to a single person. Both describe Sting playing the piano notes. The Sound on Sound article goes into further detail on Hugh Padgham's reaction and how it reminded him of an earlier work. It does not imply he was assuming sole credit for the piano part. Accordingly, I propose reverting the edit. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Songs of this discussion. isaacl (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why someone might draw that conclusion from those two sources but it reads to me in the same way you describe it here and I think the current version is running on an assumption that isn't safe enough to keep. Unless someone with access to that book shows up and it turns out it contradicts the other two sources/clarifies their versions of the story, then I would go for the revert. QuietHere (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant passages are available on Google book search, and it's essentially the same as the Sound on Sound article. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative recollection comes from an earlier interview and it is worth taking into account how the accounts slightly differ to each other. In Behind The Boards, Hugh Padgham is quoted saying the "one-note piano thing was actually kind of [his] idea in the end" for this song. Which does contradict the earlier interview saying it was Sting's. But take into account that either recollection could have a grain of truth, regardless of detail - either it was Sting's or Hugh's idea or both, the one-note piano. Hence the reversion. Reelcase (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current text is giving undue prominence to two complementary retellings of the same origin story. The rest of the Behind the Boards quote says "...Sting was sitting down at the piano trying still to come up with something for that part. And I was always into the simple things, and he kept hitting this one note, and it was like "Yes!" and we had it." This description sounds like a collaboration, and not a claiming of sole credit. I think one sentence describing the origin is sufficient. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other comments? isaacl (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion, I have reverted the edit in question. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WikiProject Music of this discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a notice on the talk page for The Police regarding this discussion. isaacl (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DuckDuckGo[edit]

The song was used in a DuckDuckGo commercial in 2022.Cwater1 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Every_Breath_You_Take&oldid=1207156325"