Talk:(Don't Fear) The Reaper

5:26 (Full version)?

I have looked for a "full version" that is 5:26 everywhere. I have looked in AllMusic; I searched all streams available in Tidal and in Apple Music; I didn't find anything resembling that length on Discogs - even the elusive 12" UK single doesn't have it, and I could not find something that closely resembles 5:26 on Youtube (other than longer "Live" versions, but that doesn't apply for a "Full" version IMHO). Is it possible to tell me where this version is to be found?

The only version I found of 5:26 is a version ripped off by Multitracks in Youtube, where the ending seems a little bit longer. But even some of the parts don't sound the same at all than the official version. I'd take this with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.231.123.2 (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/2016/05/13/dont-fear-reaper-isolated-backing-tracks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.147.3.5 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"In Other Media" - the song has appeared in two episodes of The Simpsons ("The Parent Rap" and "Homer the Father") AND also inspired the title of "Don't Fear the Roofer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (Don't Fear) The Reaper. 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/20110702084549/http://www.wivb.com/dpp/entertainment/music/Blue-Oyster-Cult-cowbell-ringer-honored to http://www.wivb.com/dpp/entertainment/music/Blue-Oyster-Cult-cowbell-ringer-honored

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on (Don't Fear) The Reaper. 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/20131017065939/http://www.candlemass.se/candlemass/discography/maxi/ to http://www.candlemass.se/candlemass/discography/maxi/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ninja Sex Party's Version

Ninja Sex Party, an American musical comedy duo, covered the song on their 2019 album Under The Covers Vol III

Since there is a Covers heading in the article, it should probably be added. After all, the article itself has a wikipedia page ( Under the Covers, Vol. III ) and all the songs are listed there and linked to all of the song pages, including this one.

Under the Covers, Vol. III Charts for reference:

Chart (2019)	Peak position
Australian Digital Albums (ARIA)	12
US Billboard 200	42

Oppose - Per WP:COVERSONG. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Per WP:COVERSONG. Can't see this version meeting GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

References

In other media

Cover en espanol occurs at least twice in "The Belko Experiment," one being end credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.59.121 (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly a suicide-advocacy song.

The lyrics are written from the perspective of a psychotic young man, stridently attempting to cajole his girlfriend to join him in a suicide pact. ("Come on, baby…")

The article acknowledges the "Romeo and Juliet are together in eternity" lyric, but omits critical context: soon thereafter, the song expresses admiration for those who are dying. "We can be like they are." Suicide is painted in idealized gothic romance terms: candles flicker out; "he" (the Reaper) appears; and when the act of suicide is complete, the deceased gain the glorious ability "to fly."

Naturally, songwriter Dharma would deny that the song advocates suicide, and has denied it – reminiscent of rappers who become more mature later in life, and regret their former glorification of gang violence. Dharma's denial is not credible.

Chris Collingwood's commentary charitably calls the song "a sad ballad about a man who wants to die with his true love before their love is spoiled by earthly things." A "man who wants to die with his true love" is, by definition, a person suffering from suicide pact ideation. If Wikipedia editors truly believe the song is not about suicide, Collingwood's thoughts should be expunged as inaccurate.

Finally, note that the band chose to call itself a "cult." Destructive cults (e.g. Peoples Temple, Heaven's Gate) are notorious for convincing their members to commit suicide.

The whole tone of the article needs to change. Wikipedia is not a place to deny the existence of blatant suicide advocacy. 2601:281:D47F:AE60:48FF:BCE0:F701:9FAD (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That's just your opinion - unless you can find any reliable sources taking the same view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Really? That the Romeo and Juliet reference is closely followed by "we can be like they are" is a matter of opinion, not fact? That the deceased are repeatedly said to gain the ability "to fly" is opinion, not fact? Um, no… not unless LyricFind is publishing falsified lyrics. (Google deems LyricFind to be a reliable source.) 2601:281:D47F:AE60:48FF:BCE0:F701:9FAD (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Advocacy" is a strong word, especially in relation to suicide. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, beyond the mere fact of the lyrics. DonIago (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's try a different word then. The song is clearly about a man trying to talk his female partner into a suicide pact, and Dharma used elements of gothic romance to glamorize such behavior. While he may not explicitly advocate such behavior, he should have known that the song would push many people further down the road of suicidal ideation – in some cases, all the way to the committing of suicide. It is impossible to know how many suicides the song has contributed to, but given that hundreds of millions of people have been exposed to its powerful lyrics, the number is certainly not zero. – the IP formerly known as 2601:281:D47F:AE60:48FF:BCE0:F701:9FAD 2601:281:D47F:AE60:6049:4AD2:452E:FD46 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific change(s) you're suggesting we make to the article here. DonIago (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:SYNTHESIS - we don't allow it - and bear in mind that the lyricist has explicitly denied any suicide links - "It frankly never occurred to me that the suicide aspect of their story would be plugged in to people’s take on ‘Reaper,’ making it an advertisement for suicide....". So, we can report any reliably-sourced controversy, but certainly not claim that the song advocates suicide. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Slow down. You claim that thy lyricist "denied any suicide links," and then, amazingly, you use a Roeser/Dharma quote that explicitly acknowledges a link between the song and a suicidal couple! "the suicide aspect of their story". If the song has zero links to suicide, Dharma would not be able to acknowledge "the suicide aspect of their story." Thank you for helping to make my case.

I already covered the fact that Dharma denied that the song advocates suicide. If a rapper who glorified gang violence later denied that he glorified gang violence, would you find that credible? I hope you are not that gullible. Perhaps your personal affinity for the song is clouding your judgement on this. (There's no doubt that musically, it's a good song. Try to separate that from what the lyrics are objectively saying.)

Chris Collingwood says the song is "about a man who wants to die with his true love," and "a man who wants to die" is by definition a suicidal person. If you truly believe that the song has no "suicide links," i.e., it's not about a man who wants to die, you should delete Collingwood's analysis at once due to its blatant inaccuracy. – the IP formerly known as 2601:281:D47F:AE60:48FF:BCE0:F701:9FAD 2601:281:D47F:AE60:6049:4AD2:452E:FD46 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Collingwood's comments are just that - commentary. There's no particular reason to either include or exclude them. But if Roeser says it's not about suicide - let alone "advocating" it - we have no authority for claiming that it is. Roeser said:

I was thinking about my own mortality. I wrote the guitar riff, the first two lines of lyric sprung into my head, then the rest of it came as I formed a story about a love affair that transcends death. I was thinking about my wife, and that maybe we’d get together after I was gone.... The second verse is the one that’s caused all the trouble all these years. ‘Valentine’ is a metaphor for mortal love. ‘Romeo and Juliet’ I used as an example of a couple who had faith to take their love elsewhere when they weren’t permitted the freedom to love here and now. What I meant was, they’re in eternity cause they had the faith to believe in the possibility. It frankly never occurred to me that the suicide aspect of their story would be plugged in to people’s take on ‘Reaper,’ making it an advertisement for suicide.

And, per WP:NPA, you should never make assumptions about any other editor's motivations. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Movie that was just like the song

There was an old black and white movie that was just like the end of the song. There used to be a youtube video where the movie was actually synched to the song, but that's gotten taken down. It seems relevant. The whole thing about the curtains blowing, the dying woman (she's on a couch in a high rise, maybe NYC 1920s?) and death comes, and they fly away, and she looks back and smiles at her boyfriend and says something. Surely this is relevant to the song? 2003:CD:EF04:396B:89D3:A84D:1D66:4FED (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not giving us a lot to work with here. We can't review a video that's been taken down; do you have any other sources? DonIago (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's consider the "Covers" section needs improvement or to be removed

I have a suggestion for this section. The current content under the "Covers" section doesn't feel like an actual section since here's just two covers listed there; there's a big chance of them being added by people inclined to do so because of music taste rather than highlighting covers for having certain characteristics. This section would actually be either:

a) A longer list of covers (this has been cover extensively throughout the years, plenty to list)

b) A paragraph on the approx amount of times it has been covered, mention a few of the larger artists who have done so, maybe some stats if relevant?

c) Move this text somewhere else and remove that section entirely Entroponaut (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

We should start with coverage in reliable sources and go from there. See WP:SONGCOVERS for guidance. Popcornfud (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. It's likely the section currently only has two covers listed because those are the only two covers for which editors have done the work to establish that the covers have some significance. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)