Talk:Lux Aeterna (Mansell)

Seperate "Lux Aeterna (Requiem for a Dream)" page

I don't think this one track need to be separated from the Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack) article. One reason for the RfaD(s) article was to collect the uses of this track, which had started to clutter up both the Requiem for a Dream film & Clint Mansell pages. But now it is yet another page removed from this, and the link is not obvious.

Unless a valid argument for separating this track from the album page is given, I will re-merge it back. The Yeti 00:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because this is the track that Requiem for a Dream is most famous for - I highly doubt that any track other than Lux Aeterna has been used in such a widespread fashion. Even from the soundtrack page: "Lux Æterna" has since become extremely popular, with both the original and the remix having appeared in a wide variety of commercials and trailers.

In my opinion, that makes it notable enough to merit its own article. Plus, it reduces clutter from the soundtrack article when 90% is about LA. Will 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know -- although I have been working on cleaning up this article, I don't really see why it's better here than as a "Lux Aeterna"-specific subsection of the soundtrack article. I find it unlikely that this page -- little more than a stub -- will ever expand into a full-fledge article. ~CS 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When people try to do internet searches on "that music from The Two Towers / Sunshine / etc trailer", they are most likely to find the answer Requiem for a Dream or Requiem for a Tower; not Lux Aeterna. That is a good reason to merge it back, as the whole point of Wikipedia is to help people find info on a topic.

And the fact that one of the "other uses" had to be moved from here back to RfaD(s) sort of invalidates the first reply given to the proposal above.

Besides, the original location [RfaD(s)] was - firstly not that long anyway, and - secondly only been in existence for a couple of weeks. The Yeti 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imdb forums ... virtually all call it Requiem for a Dream/Tower. Lux Aeterna is only added as an afterthought, if at all.

[1][2][3][4] Please state a stronger case, or else its going to be merged The Yeti 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB isn't a reliable source, and neither are message boards. Besides, you can't merge back, as there is no consensus. The track is notable enough as it has been used independent of the film in at least three works. From what I can see, you're not arguing the notability, you're arguing the name. If that's the case, just create a redirect, then. Will 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst imdb forums may not be 'reliable', it does give a good indication of how people look for the soundtrack. It may be notable, but not of such notability to need its own page. The consensus is both for and against, but there never seemed an overwhelming need to split it from RfaD(s) in the first place, for arguments listed above. Maybe a question should have been asked in the talk page of RfaD(s) prior to splitting ? As for rename/redirect - what to ? The RfaD(s) page was sufficient, and I would suggest remerging it & set up a redirect for LA(RfaD) The Yeti 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Lux Aeterna is certainly the most popularly significant track on the soundtrack, it is intrinsically part of the soundtrack and there is nothing special in the Lux Aeterna article that warrants its distinction from the main article. It would be of much better use, as well as more accessible, as a subsection of the main RfaD(s) article. As well, since the main article is relatively bare in terms of content, the two articles' distinction is proof of a failure to be concise, something that should be eliminated if at all possible. Iamthedeus 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need anything "special" in the article. The track is notable, and I think the use in last night's trailer for LOST pretty much affirms it. Use in trailers for Emmy winning television shows and Oscar winning movies (and some that haven't, but are notable), in my opinion, passes WP:N. Will ^{(I hope they cannot see, I AM THE GREAT DESTROYER!)} 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It meets WP:N as Will says. I see no benefit to a merger. Matthew 17:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I have to agree that it is better as is. Iamthedeus 02:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this talk page is cluttered. I fully support the merger, as I believe that although this may be a notable recording from the original soundtrack, it is still part of the soundtrack and should be put in the original soundtrack article. And, in disagreement with Will and Matthew, I do NOT think it meets WP:N, because in the first paragraph, it states Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Just because it has been used in a few movies, and is famous, does not mean that it should not be merged into the original soundtrack article.WiiAlbanyGirl 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who only found this piece of music through this page, I am strongly against a merger. I feel this piece of music is notable enough to warrant it's own page. Thank you. Arawn 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this page remains separate from Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack). This is a notable piece which has been used elsewhere, too.54UV1K 07:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rfadost.jpg

Image:Rfadost.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Dream: Remixes

I don't think that Requiem for a Tower counts as a remix of Lux Aeterna. The producers of the remix album appeared to have been thinking the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.174.168 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

"A youtube video background sound for the Hungarian weightlifting accident in Beijing ."

I don't see how this is really notable. Is this an official or homemade video?_Unusual ^Gazelle 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes

I'm pretty sure in the second season of Heroes, in the scenes where Hiro is in 16th century Japan, you can hear part of Lux Aeterna playing in the background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.131.48 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Although this issue has been discussed before, I strongly believe that this article should be merged with Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack). It is best to avoid spreading out similar information over several articles, which is what is happening at the moment. If the articles did merge, Lux Aeterna (Requiem for a Dream) would redirect to Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack), so it would not spoil the flow of a search on Lux Aeterna (Requiem for a Dream). --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support the plan. I guess if no one else says anything just do it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think having all this Lux Aeterna usage in popular culture and such would compromise the unity and focus of the Requiem for a Dream soundtrack article. If you, or anyone, have an elegant solution, feel free to pipe up. Currently, while I don't oppose, nor do I support the proposal, per se; I'm leaning towards oppose. Qwerty (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, note the discussion above. Qwerty (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is noted, but on balance I believe that a single redirect to Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack) would be a better solution. One of the things that I intend to do is to slim down the excessive list of appearances of the orchestral version in film trailers etc. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the mentions to those referenced in reliable sources should take care of the length issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against the proposal, even though I know it's most probably a vain effort. It's notable enough to have its own page. (And, you can categorize this page with "Theme music", but not the RfaD soundtrack article. :D) Qwerty (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources that prove notability? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is little doubt that the orchestral version of Lux Aeterna (aka Requiem for a Tower) has been used in numerous film and television trailers. A quick look around YouTube will confirm this. The main reason for merging the articles is to ensure continuity without splitting the same information across more than one article. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im firmly against it. The song is by far notable enough to have its own entry, its used all over the place not just in the film aspect. Information is duplicated all over wikipedia its about notability not duplication of information that articles should have there own pages. There is too much information in this article to clutter up the Requiem for a Dream soundtrack page.--Prophesy (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the article is a short paragraph about the piece itself, followed by a bloated and badly written list of WP:TRIVIA appearances of the piece in film trailers etc. This needs some serious pruning, because it looks amateurish and there is no way of knowing how accurate some of the appearances are. Nobody is denying that the orchestral version is notable, but whether it needs its own article is debatable. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jugging simply by how many times the uses section has had to be cut down id say it is easily wildly used enough to merit its own article. Yes this article amounts to a list and is messy, it could do with pruning at least a decent rewrite at best but I feel the song itself still needs an article of its own.--Prophesy (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems here is that the article title of Lux Aeterna (Requiem for a Dream) is misleading. When people refer to this piece in the context of film trailers etc, what they usually mean is Requiem for a Tower - Movement IV by Corner Stone Cues. This piece does not appear on the original soundtrack album of Requiem for a Dream, and is a reworking of Lux Aeterna for orchestra and choir. If strict compliance with Wikipedia rules was enforced here, most of the appearances in trailers etc would be removed due to problems with WP:TRIVIA and WP:V. This is a common problem with "In popular culture" sections, because everybody wades in and adds more examples than are really necessary. It is enough to say that the piece has been used in numerous film and television trailers and to leave it at that. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIVIA tagging

The article is becoming little more than a trivia magnet, with far too many non-notable and unsourced mentions of where the piece can be found. There are now strong grounds for merging this article with the main soundtrack article as soon as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that some people love to compile lists, but please bear in mind that WP:LISTCRUFT is discouraged on Wikipedia. Also, the article title is misleading, because most of the "in popular culture" references are to the orchestra/choir version "Requiem for a Tower" which does not appear in the film Requiem for a Dream.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

The Baltimore Ravens website is currently using Lux Aeterna as part of the movie which plays upon opening the homepage (background to highlight clips, presented by Miller Lite). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.176.69 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer song

can anybody check the song in the official trailer for the movie? i think the song is not "porcelain" but "everloving" (both the same album from moby).

Canon commercial, version identified?

Is anyone able to identify the version used for the Canon Powershot commercial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghee22 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to buy this music?

OK so I just heard this music on the Flash Forward promo. I found the music on youtube, 2 different versions - Requiem for a Dream and Requiem for a Tower - both over 6 minutes long. Then I went to amazon to try to find the music, and the Requiem for a Dream soundtrack has a 4 minute version of the song. The Requiem for a Tower downloads are all less than one minute long. Huh? Where can I buy the 6:30 version of the song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weakipedist (talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the versions you heard on YouTube were looped. Podex (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not looped. My version comes in at 6:34, which I assume is the version you are alluding to. Far be it from me to give you places to illegally download it, but sufficient searching should find you a purchase location. RadicalTwo (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the six minute version is not available commercially. There are downloads of it on the web, but are "unofficial" as the saying goes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culling

OK, the list of appearances is getting out of hand. I propose, and am going, to cull most of the lists. My criteria for something staying will be : a) if it been in an officially released trailer (film or video games with a Wiki entry) b) main theme tune for a TV show c) main theme in an advert. Anything that's just used as background music I'm gonna cull. So all those entries for TV shows that have used - and quite literally this list could be a 1000 titles long if someone wanted to spend their time hunting these down - will go. Similarly music used just as entrance music, etc for sport teams is going. Quite frankly, the piece has been used tens of thousands of time now, most for a few seconds for just background. TV trailers are ten a penny, and put together for a show plug, that, once the show has started, is instantly forgotten.

Strictly, most everything that doesn't have a cite or ref should go, but I'll see if someone will add these to the shortened list. The Yeti (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If everything that was unsourced or a list was removed, the article would end up so short that it might face a deletion debate. I have always felt that the article title is misleading anyway, because the vast majority of appearances of this piece in video games etc are Requiem for a Tower, which does not appear in the soundtrack of the 2000 film. A few paragraphs noting the use of the adapted version in film trailers in Requiem for a Dream (soundtrack) would be my preferred choice, but I don't want to edit war or become involved in endless debates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem for a Tower does at least redirect here. Although I agree a merger with the RfaD Soundtrack is probably preferable, its been debated twice (above) with no consensus being reached. The Yeti (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uses in pop culture

I believe that just as it is frowned upon to reference Iron Maiden and their song "The Trooper" in relation to the poem "The Charge Of The Light Brigade" by Alfred, Lord Tennesen so too is it the case with referencing Lux Aeterna and its uses outside of the original score except where it's actually licensed for that purpose. Lux aeterna has been used in many trailers, sporting events and the like but I don't believe that this is worth aknowledging.

Anders Breivik

Is the music choice of one madman really significant enough to be put on here?Stanislao Avogadro (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the new [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.16.106 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2011_Norway_attacks/Archive_2#Breivik_.22listened_to_film_music_from_The_Lord_of_the_Rings.22. There is some notability, but not for this article. The media was also wrong to say that he listened to this piece during the attack, when this is speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit. Wikipedia is not censored, but in view of the relatively short length of this article, a whole paragraph about Breivik saying that he might listen to the piece during the attack is undue weight. This information would fit in better in an article about the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Title?

Is the title of the song meant to be rendered as "Lux Aeterna" or as "Lux Æterna"? I've seen both, sometimes on the same page. The variation with "Ae" has many more hits on Google, but does this reflect the correct title or just people avoiding the ligature for convenience? --Alx xlA (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The track listing on the soundtrack CD would be the best guide. Since I don't own this, can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After some online searching, here is the track listing of the soundtrack CD, which uses the spelling "Lux Aeterna" (no ligature).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]