Talk:California Dreamin'

Tradition of Incorrect Lyrics?

For some time I have been going crazy trying to determine the words to a line in this song. Without exception everyone assures me I am wrong. Even the official lyrics of the song say I'm wrong, but I can't convince myself that I am because the line (as accepted by most), simply doesn't make sense. The line in the song which is in question is this: "You know the preacher likes the cold." I am convinced that the line says "You know the preacher lights a cove."

I have listened to the song HUNDREDS of times and though sometimes I can almost hear "The preacher likes the cold", I always draw the same conclusion: "The preacher lights a cove". For one thing, SO WHAT if the pracher liked the cold or not...what does it add to the meaning of the song? Nothing! It's just a random line thrown in. However, the other possible line makes perfect sense in the context of the song: A vagabond is walking on a winter day and gets cold. He decides to go inside a church because he knows he can find shelter there. Not wanting to appear to be the vagabond he is, he drops to his knees and pretends to pray, for fear the priest might throw him out. The priest however is not fooled by this deception. He knows full well what the person is doing and why he is there. Taking pity, the priest then lights a cove (alcove). In traditionally designed Churches, alcoves (coves) are small cubbies in the end of the chapel, usually filled with prayer candels for devotions. Allowing the man to keep his dignity, the priest "plays along" with the deception and lights these candels, warming the cove, since he knows the man is intending to stay for awhile to get warm. THIS makes sense to me within the context of the song.

I know in the grand scheme of things, what does this really matter, but everytime I hear this song (which I love) it drives me crazy trying to figure out what is being said. I'd be intersted in anyone else's thoughts and opinions on this. Is it possible that somehow when the song was first performed, that the person who wrote the official lyrics for the album jacket may have gotten them wrong himself and no one bothered to correct the error?! Is it EVEN an error in the first place! I have to admit, sometimes it does sound like it MIGHT be "The preacher likes the cold" but again...that just doesn't make sense to me. Thanks for the input.

They say "like the cold" and it makes perfect sense. Sorry to burst your bubble. The reason you can't hear anything else is because it's stuck in your mind already. Language is highly susceptible to suggestion.

I think it's "the preacher lights the coal." a reference to a heater to provide a modicum of warmth. Some very old churches had coal burners just for that purpose. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The narrator gets down on his knees and "pretends to pray". Pretending to pray is his cover story for an extended stay in the comfortable, warm church.

2. The preacher may or may not know if the praying is real, but he

3. "Likes the cold", because he knows that the kneeling, possibly praying person ain't goin' nowhere else.

4. "He knows I'm going to stay". The preacher likes a full house. Likes to have customers in the facility. (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool 24.117.65.162 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Disney California Adventure

I removed the Disney California Adventure from the trivia section because it already appeared in the use section. Rissole 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Benassi

Benny Benassi remixed this song, someone write anything about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.23.235 (talk) 17:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Benny Benassi did NOT have anything to do with the song... online copies of the Royal Gigolos' original bootleg cover version have been credited to Benassi, when it is actually the Gigolos. Benassi had NOTHING to do with the track online, or the version the Gigolos released with a new chorus. See here: http://dancemusic.about.com/od/remixersproducers/a/BennyBenassi2k6_2.htm 123.243.236.11 (talk) 10:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Commercial

This song was on an television commercail that screened in Australia a few years ago for butter menthols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.121.116 (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TheMamasAndThePapas-IfYouCanBelieveYourEyesAndEars.jpg

The image Image:TheMamasAndThePapas-IfYouCanBelieveYourEyesAndEars.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Whiny bot alert. Crush its non-existent head.Obbop (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Cover versions

This whole section needs to be removed. None of these covers are as well-known or noticed as the original version by the Mamas & the Papas. If they had achieved some renown, there'd be a reason to include them. As it is, they haven't. Right now, they're just cluttering the article and need to go. Every two-bit artist that's released an album covering this very well-known song has an entry. It's not improving the article at all. I'm going to trim the list significantly. If you object, please discuss it here. Thanks! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything above goes for the Significant artistic and commercial uses section as well. This is a very popular song and it's used in numerous movies and video games. Not all of these occurrences are very notable. Sometimes it's just a background song, sometimes the movie is forgettable. We don't need to list all of them; it doesn't help, it hurts. Less is more. Only when the song is prominently featured in an important or high-profile work should it be listed. I know this is subjective, but let's use some judgment here. Long lists of forgettable uses doesn't help anyone. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to remove everything in the "Cover versions" section except for the lead-in to that section. If anyone objects, say so now or forever hold your peace. There is nothing particularly notable in the sections that merit keeping them cluttering up the article. If no one objects, I'll remove the sections in the next few days. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UT

I'm wondering if there are any details supporting "The Beach Boys recorded two versions of the song". I can only find evidence of the version with Roger McGuin; according to the article, there is a prior version as well. If this is true, it should be explained, if not true, it should be removed.

A cover is really a recording released immediately after a first recording intended to compete with on the charts (or "cover") that first recording while bypassing having to pay an initial one-time payment for the song. For this to work, the cover has to be released very shortly after the first recording and well before that recording has completed its sales trajectory (after the first recording has begun to descend the charts is too late). A cover certainly and absolutely is not any recording or performance of any piece not written by the performer. (In fact, in the classic and clearest case the song will not have been written by the performers on the first recording, on the recording being covered.)

An initial one-time payment is usually negotiated between a professional pop songwriter and those responsible for the first recording--the singer or his representative or the record company--because a professional pop songwriter couldn't possibly subsist on royalty rates set by federal law. But once a song has been commercially recorded or published, it is legal for anyone to record it as long as he pays this nominal royalty at this nominal rate.

After a pop song has had its initial run on the charts, it's impossible for it to be covered (ever). It's also impossible for anything in the public domain to be covered and impossible for anything already published to be covered. TheScotch (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

that is a bunch of nonsense - who died and made you master of covers? you do a song that was by or associated with some other artist, it is a cover. plain and simple. obviously, the first one needs to have been RELEASED or nobody's gonna KNOW it was a cover. there's some line calls -- springsteen covering his OWN songs after someone else made them famous, for example -- but length of time is really not a factor. it's been, what, 50 years now on most of the beatles songs -- if i recorded one of them tomorrow, it would still be a "cover".

as to the actual QUESTION, the existence of a second beach boys' version is indeed a bit iffy. as far as i can piece together from books and blogs, there was a first stab, with slightly diff members (al jardine coming or going, was it?), released on some "ronco summer tunes" type album. either 8-track or cassette only...no vinyl.

they cleaned it up, swapped a member or two, and released a "real" version 6 months later. the one with the video.

so they say. either/both can be found online, but they seem 100% identical to me, so i suspect they're actually all version #2. until someone comes up with the actual CASSETTE for the first one -- or at least a COVER PHOTO -- i'm gonna file it under "urban myth".209.172.23.19 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

GOCE

• All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.

Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Songwriting Credit for Flute Solo

I really like the flute solo in this song by Bud Shank. How does it work for listing the writers of a song if someone writes a part of it? Is the list of writers determined by an original copyright or is it decided by a certain procedure or guided by simplicity? I am guessing it is not an uncommmon occurrence for different people to write different parts of a song. I would vote to include Bud Shank as a songwriter. Synesthetic (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's seperate, When someone orders a Wedding cake no one asks (outside of who decorated the cake) "who mixed the batter". - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree. I can maybe see your analogy to applying to mixing a song but not to writing a significant part of the song. Synesthetic (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's only "significant" because you like it. Good luck on finding the answer you want. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. There are a lot of people who like the solo which makes it a significant part of the song. I do however believe there is more creativity involved in writing the notes in the solo than in 'mixing the batter'. Regarding finding the answer to the question, the best I could find was from the Wikipedia Songwriter article which mentions that many 'phantom' co-writers are not given credit because once they are given credit it is very hard to remove them. It seems the practice is to choose to possibly error on the side of not giving credit when it is not clear what to do. Synesthetic (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it all boils down to, if there is not a reliable source that gives separate credit to "who wrote the flute part", then it's not includable. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, 'there is not a reliable source that gives separate credit' is a perfectly acceptable answer to me. Synesthetic (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Bud Shank and the rest of the Wrecking Crew were performing a work for hire. They were paid their rate for the session. Solos, intros, all part of the deal. Rainbow-five (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)