Talk:Caroline, No

Fair use rationale for Image:Beach Boys - Caroline No.jpg
Image:Beach Boys - Caroline No.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carolineno sheet.jpg
Image:Carolineno sheet.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 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) 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"The opening line... indicates that the song's protagonist is dissatisfied with his partner's new haircut and in general with changes in her personality." has got to be one of the worst ways to summarise this song and one of the best ways to kill all the meaning this song has that I have ever seen. Paul McCartney said he cried when he listened to it, yet the best that Wikipedia can come up with is "dissatisfied with his partner's new haircut". There has got to be a template for this... Warning! Some people will think you are trying to be serious. Anyway, I'd change it, but that would destroy what is, in its own twisted and mixed up way, a truly quintessential Wikipedia line. JS (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! You're right on.  I've seen similar atrocities in articles related to Pink Floyd's The Wall.  Anyway, it's been changed, so I'm glad you left the comment for our amusement.  --63.25.118.201 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is indeed an amusing and simplistic interpretation of 'where did your long hair go?". When listening to Pet Sounds again a week or so ago, I finally (after hearing it first half a century ago, and many times since) realized that at the end, Caroline gets run over by a train. How's that for an interpretation? Wastrel Way (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC) Eric

The key.
According to the sheet music book (which I added to the list of references), the key (after being sped up) is D-flat, not F#/G-flat as the article previously stated. If you think about it, D-flat's the right key, even though the song does not start with a D-flat chord. Here are the chords:

VERSE:
 * Ab6 | Gb6/Db | Ab6 | Gb6/Db | Ab6 | Abm7 Db9sus4 | Db6 | Gbmaj9 :||

I don't see how you could argue this is G flat when the Ab major is so prominent.

BRIDGE: Ebm7 Ab7 | Dbmaj9 | Cm7(b5) Gbdim7 | Bbm | A6 ||

It's the bridge which really settles it: The first two chords, a classic ii - V resolving to a Db chord (indeed, a major ninth), and the next two chords resolving to the relative minor, Bbm. And that A(natural) with the sixth is equivalent to the minor IV of Db (F#m/Gbm), which is always a telltale sign.

Hope that heads off any arguments.

--63.25.26.25 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, incidentally, the sheet music book gives the chords as "Fm7/Ab" and "Ebm7/Db". I don't understand why one would ever use "Fm7/Ab" when an Ab6 is the exact same chord, and a simpler name.  Also, the Db9sus4 was named "Abm7/Db" (this kind of chord comes up a LOT in the Pet Sounds material).  If I'm doing something wrong by renaming these, I'd be interested to know.
 * --63.25.26.25 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I still would argue for Gb. What you say about the first chords in the bridge also applies to the last chords in the verse: Abm7 - Db9sus4 - Db6 - Gbmaj9... also an example of ii-V-I. And to me, it's the only time that the chords truly sound resolved in the whole song. I would also argue that the chords in the sheet music book aren't entirely accurate. The Db9sus4 sounds more like a plain old Db7, and the next chord, Db6, should be Gbmaj7/Db, I think. Try playing through with those chords and see which sounds more like the recording. (Also, in the bridge, the Gbdim chord should have an F in the bass, making it F7(b9), a fairly common jazz chord. And the last chord in the bridge is Eb7(b5)/A, not a plain A6 chord.) (My point is, the sheet music isn't completely accurate.)


 * This is what Philip Lambert has to say in his book Inside The Music Of Brian Wilson, which I think that you would really enjoy.:
 * "The back and forth between bass notes Ab and Db makes most sense in the keys of Db or Gb, but the chords above offer little in the way of confirmation. When we do finally get a sense of total resolution, at the end of the phrase 'How could you lose that happy glow,' we want to hear it in Gb, but the bass note stays on the the fifth of the chord, in second inversion, on the word 'glow,' making us wait one more bar for a stronger resolution to a Gb bass note supporting the word 'no' in 'Oh, Caroline, no.'... Later, in the bridge, the progression comes to a rest briefly on the other key implied earlier, Db, on the words 'go and cry,' and subsequently on still another key, down a minor third to Bbm, for the words 'sweet thing die.' After an artful turnaround on 'Oh, Caroline, why,' we're then back to the verse and the familiar tonal indecision."


 * There comes a point where it becomes almost impossible to say what key some of Brian Wilson's from this time period are in... Don't Talk, Surf's Up, Let's Go Away For Awhile never really settle on any one key. I Just Wasn't Made For These Times seems to be pretty clearly in Bb to me, but only hits a root postition Bb chord twice, neither time all that convincingly.


 * My point is that it can be somewhat dangerous to assign keys to these songs, but if one must, I think that Gb should be the choice for Caroline, No. MookieZ (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You definitely raise some interesting points. However, I just don't see how you can ignore the fact that an A-flat major, with its C natural, is both the first, and the most prominent chord.  If you're willing to overlook that and put the song in G flat, why not instead call the G-flats accidentals and put it in A flat?  Then, at least the key signature will match the first chord! (I've seen inferior sheet music companies do exactly this -- the first chord dictates the key signature, regardless of what happens next.)  That makes about as much sense.
 * Regarding your chord corrections, they certaintly would work, but . . . Well, have you tried playing along with the recording? I just went over and over it, especially the bridge.  That Gbdim7 definitely is Gb in the bass.  I myself originally thought it was F7, before I got the sheet music (Cm7 to F7 being a standard change), but I've just verified it by playing along.  I try to avoid this sort of reasoning, but I think Brian would have been attracted to the change of flattening just one note (Bb to A) in the right-hand chord.  Regarding the Db9sus4 (aka Abm7/Db), yes, I hear it that way, but it makes sense that a Db7 would sound okay to you.  The next chord still sounds like Db6 to me.  You're just hearing a Gb somewhere where I don't.  Finally . . . "Eb7(b5)/A"?  Why even call it that?  Is that not identical to an A7(b5)?  But my only real concern is your apparently hearing a G natural instead of F#/Gb in there.  This is simply incorrect.  Try playing along, ideally with a keyboard you know is in tune, but voice it with that G natural on top -- A, C#, D#, G -- it sticks out most hideously!  You'll switch it to F# soon enough, I predict.  Thanks for informing me of the D#/Eb in there, though.  I guess you'd call it an F#m6/A, or would A6(b5) be better?  (So long as we don't start calling it "B9/A" . . . .)
 * I recognize that the verse does lead to a feeling of resolution on G flat, but I have to consider the Ab major, plus the basic bass roots of Ab, Db, and Gb adding up to a V-I-IV in D flat. If anything, he's changing keys back and forth in mid-verse, but, when notated in D flat, that still only amounts to one measure with accidentals in it.
 * Then there's the question of the bridge, again. Thanks for the Lambert recommendation, and I probably will check it out, but statements like his reference to B-flat minor as "still another key" will exasperate me;  I hope there's not too much of that sort of thing. Point being, the bridge is in "five flats" through and through.  Even the F#m6/A (whatever you call it) is basically the minor IV, begging for resolution to Db (that never comes, fittingly enough.)
 * While I still don't agree, I appreciate the reasoning you've put forth. And I agree that it can be a fool's game trying to limit Brian's compositions to any one key.
 * Oh, and regarding "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", well, that's just Brian deliberately trying to confound the listener in general, and his traditionalist songwriter father specifically. The chorus does resolve to a B-flat, more or less, but with a C in the bass that quickly descends Bb, Ab, G.  The sheet music did notate it in two flats, but of course, accidentals abound.  They put the first half of "Let's Go Away For Awhile" in F, which is almost arbitrary.  But I think "Don't Talk" is clearly in E-flat minor/G-flat Major.
 * --63.25.234.43 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a typo which is causing unneccessary disagreement between us... For the last chord of the bridge, I meant to write Ebm7(b5)/A. The G-natural would sound bad, as I believe that the melody is on Gb at that point. I'm not going to be able to get to a keyboard until the weekend, so I can't work through it until then. However, listening to it on my iPod, I can tell that you are right about the Gbdim7... I'd been playing it with the F in the bass for about 12 years now. Oops. The distinctions between the other chords we disagree on are too small; I have to get to a piano to figure those out. I first worked through these changes in college, 12 years ago, so it's very possible that I have changed the chords around in my head since then, or was wrong in the first place.

Ebm7(b5)/A vs. F#m6/A: I would write the former for a few reasons. In a song with so many flats, it seems odd to me to suddenly start writing chords with sharps in them, in fact, this would probably be the only chord with sharps in the whole song. Also, if you take the bass notes out of it, which looks better to you, going from Ebm7(b5) to Ab6 or from F#m6 to Ab6? Now, if I was just sight-reading the song, then I would absolutely want to see F#m6/A, as that would be a heck of a lot easier to figure out quickly. Anyway, I'll be able to write more on Monday. (And wow! F is very arbitrary for Let's Go Away...) MookieZ (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if you're going to use that rationale, you have to go all the way and call it E♭m7(♭5)/B♭♭ (double flat!), in which case you might as well call it G♭m6/B♭♭ . . . or maybe it's B♭♭6(♯11) or B♭♭6(♭5)?
 * BUT . . . If we're talking about avoiding accidentals, that means we have to notate it in D♭, with only four (4) chords in the whole song (not counting repeats) requiring accidentals . . . Gotcha!
 * By the way, don't feel bad about taking the G♭dim7 as an F7 -- turns out he's singing a D-flat over it, just dipping down to C before changing chords ("watch a" in "watch a sweet thing die"). So it doesn't really give you a good clue.  For some reason, that melodic change would make more sense to me over the F7 than a G♭dim7.  Maybe because I think of diminished sevenths as so volatile, I'd dare not sing or play anything but chord tones over it.
 * --63.25.8.28 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about you over here... I've been a lot busier than I thought that I'd this week. I still haven't gotten to the piano yet, but I have had a thought: How about Gb Lydian? It has five flats, and the melody fits in Gb Lydian quite well. I'll get to the piano as soon as I can, but for now, I'll see you over at the Our Prayer talkpage. MookieZ (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of Wikipedia editing before I ever signed up. . . I just want to take credit for my side of this civil and productive argument. Thank you, MookieZ, for your part in it, and for keeping things cool between us. --Ben Culture (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Eric Carmen Cover
Freshacconci, there is no reason to revert the edit regarding Eric Carmen. I'm not sure if you are actually reading the article or just like undoing edits, but it is no different than other points made in the category. The category lists other covers. Most popular song articles on Wikipedia have a list of cover versions of songs. This category even has more "trivial" points, such as the song being mentioned by other artists. I would also argue that a cover is not trivia, as consensus shows on many popular song articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domanator (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That the page already has "trivial points" is hardly a justification for more trivia. WP:TRIVIA is pretty clear and adding every insignificant cover violates pretty much the idea that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And claiming some sort of anti-elitism is hardly assuming good faith. Edit warring is never a good idea.  freshacconci  talk talk  23:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So why should the other "trivia" be there then? If it is because you think Eric Carmen is insignificant, it's not true. He was the frontman for the Raspberries who had several hits, and he also had several hits as a solo artist. The bottom line is you can't use the "trivia" excuse to justify taking this off with the other "trivia" being there. As I have stated before, it is standard for Wikipedia song articles to list song covers. The war you started is senseless. Domanator (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't list every single cover of a given song. Eric Carmen was significant in the 70s but a 2000 album by him is not particularly important. You are being disruptive and edit warring. Stop it.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't list every single cover. I added one. This is about elitism and is what makes Wikipedia horrible. Normal people just want to edit a page and contribute something and people who devote their lives to Wikipedia can't stand it and have to delete it. You are being disruptive. Let someone else make a contribution. I just added some information. You are being dogmatic about something that is your opinion. Eric Carmen is a significant artist. I agree the the album in discussion is not "particular important," however, the fact that Eric covered the song is. It's just as important as any other artist listed there. Does adding Eric Carmen's cover harm anything? No it doesn't. It can be left up for discussion. Maybe others will speak on it. Domanator (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Beatles Influence
The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album was heavily influenced by Pet Sounds.

I think that this song was an inspiration to the Beatles' "Strawberry Fields Forever", which had a coda that, less directly, had a nonverbal section referencing a train.

Also, I think it influenced the Beatles' "Good Morning Good Morning" with the animal sounds.

I don't know the references for this, but I bet they're out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) --dnsla23 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnsla (talk • contribs)

Weasel wording
The article currently reads:

"While it is commonly understood that Wilson composed the majority of the music on Pet Sounds, it has been claimed that 'Caroline, No' was one of three songs in which Asher contributed musical ideas rather than acting solely as a co-lyricist; the other two being 'That's Not Me' and 'I Just Wasn't Made for These Times'."

The source for this is page page 145 of Gaines's Heroes and Villains, which simply states, In a few instances, Asher contributed to the music too, as in "Caroline No", "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" and "That's Not Me".

As an encyclopedia, we should not be using more words than our sources.

→Ben Culture (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)←


 * On the same page, there are a few paragraphs written after that statement concerning Asher's role as lyricist and Wilson's as composer.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Caroline, No. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/song/caroline-no-t2827573

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Popular Culture section
Some of the items in the popular culture section seem quite superfluous and hard to make a serious case for inclusion in the article. One that comes to mind is "Does Caroline Know" by Talk Talk or the "pun" names references. It seems appropriate that covers of the tune be included as well as direct mentions in other media. That approach would be consistent with this type of section in other articles I've read. Some of the items appear to have no real purpose for inclusion other than the mention itself. As I see there has been some contention in the past on this section I have been reluctant to edit some of the items that are currently in the article. I would like to get input from others before proceeding to do some edits. Thoughts? THX1136 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Did the edits I felt were appropriate since there was no input on this issue. Items did not have a cited source for the connection to the tune itself. THX1136 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)