Talk:Spirit in the Sky

Theology

I've taken out the part analyzing the "theology" of the lyrics. Clearly, whoever tried to analyze them that way doesn't get the song. The lyrics that were said to "coincide" with Christian doctrine do not - in Christianity, Jesus doesn't recommend you to God; he guarantees your entry into Heaven. The discourse on the Gospel was out of place, as the song is not intended to be a serious examination of theology. Quite the opposite.

I hope my changes haven't offended anyone. I think the article is much clearer now. Kafziel 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "In fact, the line 'Never been a sinner, I never sinned' runs counter to the Christian concept of sin. (Though, it is consistent with some interpretations of the Doctrine of Justification)" is unnecessary. This article is about Norman Greenbaum's song not an analysis of so-called "Christian Doctrine" or what the song may or may not coincide with and if it aligns with Mars... Why does it have to be so difficult? Norman Greenbaum wasn't writing a "christian" song as already stated. Leave the dime store theology out and rock to the music. Greenbomb101 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that Greenbaum was being satirical and poking fun of Christian theology? It seem to make sense, considering the composer is Jewish. (Jack) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.63.11 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the answer to this and other exciting questions go to www.spiritinthesky.com. As I remember from "Jewhoo" (can't find the web site anymore) Norman Greenbaum wrote the song back when the "Jesus People" or the "Jesus Movement" was in full swing in those bygone 60's, hippie days in California, and a song with a Jesus reference would sell. Amazing it was his one big hit tho' I do enjoy many of his other, lesser-known songs such as "Canned Ham", "The Eggplant that Ate Chicago"... Greenbomb101 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article looking for an answer if this song was satirical or not after a comment posted in a forum indicated it was. And it may entirely be so. A listener might infer that the song is 'careless' in the way it is put together with the instrumentation and lyrics even. Likewise one might could use the description 'carefree'. This definitely needs more research, because if it is, it might would be the single greatest example of Poe's Law ever! Nodekeeper (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used in movies.

IMDb currently lists 19 films using the song. I think only major films should be listed. -- Jeandré, 2006-07-09t09:38z

But one of them should certainly be the great "Miami Blues," where its maverick weirdness harmonizes perfectly. Jackaroodave (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Young

In the paragraph on the Nike commercial, Steve Young needs to be disambiguated. If it is the football player from the 49ers, the link is Steve Young (athlete).

BigrTex 22:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible history

O I added the extra stanza to end it better than the original.67.170.214.183 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image and infobox on this page are currently to do with Doctor and the Medics. This seems wrong to me -- since the song was originally a hit under the name of its composer, it seems like the album cover for the Greenbaum single should take precedence. Also, since the Greenbaum version remains the more popular, it probably shouldn't say, in big blaring letters, "Single by Doctor and the Medics", unless it also says the same thing about Greenbaum. The way the page is set up seems ass backwards to me. Anybody else have any thoughts? Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelic songs

How come this can't be listed under psychedelic songs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.145.233 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to glam rock

The second para of the section on "cultural impact" refers to the track's impact on glam rock in the early 1970s. I don't deny that such a relationship probably existed, but it needs published citations, per policy on verifiability. In particular, I question the inclusion in that text of a reference to the saxophone on the track being "unusual for rock of the time". Apart from the fact that any saxophone is not prominent on the track anyway, it is simply not true to say that saxophone was particularly unusual at that time - saxophone has been prominent in many rock recordings right through from the 1950s. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog number

The record sprit in the sky. the number 0885 what does that means or are all records numbers the same. I have a record like the on on wikipedia. The same numbers 0085, m17565. reprise records, norman greenbaum. <email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.216.109 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 0885 is the Reprise Records catalog number for that single. I'm not sure what the M17565 signifies, perhaps a reference number for the master recording but I don't know. All the copies of the single that were pressed in the US would have the same numbers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Gates

I find it odd that the Gareth Gates cover is featured so prominently in the article. I have four covers, besides Greenbaum's original: Elton John, Doctor & The Medics, and The Losers, which performed it back in 2002 on the Howard Stern show. I guess only Gareth Gates actually edits Wikipedia himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.138.82 (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that section needs to be trimmed, though not removed entirely - it was a UK # 1 hit after all. Go to it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Spirit in the Sky. 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: 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) 21:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]