Talk:You're So Vain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Billboard All Time Top 100[edit]

Link in article is broken. https://www.billboard.com/charts/greatest-hot-100-singles shows it at #87, though it's not the 50th anniversary list. Maybe change the link to that instead and note as of [May 2020]? 38.125.21.249 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

who or whom?[edit]

in the phrase "who[/m] is it about?", who[/m] serves as the object of the preposition; therefore it should be whom. why does someone keep changing this?

I agree with you although nobody would ever say that in normal speech, because they'd know that to answer "knock knock" with the question "Whom is it?" is so clearly wrong, which means that "Yes, I heard. And it is whom?" would be wrong because most people double the subject for "is"-verbs. BUT, this is a different situation. "Its about a mystery man." "So, who is the man? Who is it?" would be correct, whereas "She wrote a song." "About whom?" is correct. "It" (i.e. the song) is the subject of the sentence, so "who(m)" can't be.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Why the heavy emphasis on the subject of the song? It is about a vain lover. That is all. Why presume it is about any real person? Do we ask this question about other "love" songs? Of course not. Furthermore, examples of his unlikely activities, said to be clues as to his identity, merely suggest that it can't be a real person.

The into refers to a "critical profile of a self-absorbed lover". Am I the only one to see the irony in the lyrics. The irony being that the song is in fact about him, vain or not!124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irony. It's simply tautological paradox. "You probably think this song is about you" suggests that it isn't, or may not be, but it has to be. No, you aren't the only one. Everybody notices this. It's an extremely obvious gimmick and not particularly clever. The song itself is inviting us to guess its subject, and that's why we do. TheScotch (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this song is about you[edit]

I can't help but notice that there's an e, an a, and an r in every man.--Heathcliff 03:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to reformat the "every man" in your post so that the letters "e", "a", and "r" jump out more? I did not know they were in boldface until I put this talk-page into Edit mode. And, just FYI, "every woman" also has an "e", an "a", and an "r".2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
  • Same with Mick Jagger and Warren Beatty. :p--Kross 07:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
...and James Taylor --Kross
Don't know this music but was it covered by Chimaira rather than Chimera. Have fixed Janet Jackson a link also Alf 07:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the link belongs on the main page, but McSweeneys' rebuttal to "You're so vain" is painfully funny. TheronJ 20:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"hear-say"[edit]

According to word of mouth, Carly Simon invites people to her place in Martha's Vinyard; then she tells a certain group of people who and what the song is about. Before hearing this information, you must sign documents stating you will keep your lips sealed, "or else". A certain person (name not stated), said one clue he could give was, "it is not one person, but a group of people.

After hearing this my guess has been Republicans, which makes sense because the song was written in a democratic pause (Presidant Jimmy Carter)in the middle of a republican reign.

The song was released in 1972 when Richard Nixon was in office. Carter didn't become President until 1976.

The speculation stating the mystery man is Jagger, is completely absurd. He did the back up vocals for the song. Why would Carly Simon make a big deal about something everyone already new?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iugetanurra (talk • contribs)

Over the years she has given 3 letters as clues, letters to many of the speculated names. A friend who was a study in music and a very serious personclaimed it may also refer to GERORGE HARRISON of the beatles. Is there any connection known between the song writer and Harrison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.75.112 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think Dan Lasater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharplaw (talk • contribs) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation[edit]

  • Can anyone justify the inclusion of Carole King as one of the possible subjects of the song? I see no basis for speculating that the song is supposed to have a lesbian interpretation (or that either King or Simon are or were lesbians). By the way, the song was written and became a hit during the (Republican) Nixon administration, several years before Jimmy Carter became president. --Metropolitan90 01:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put Daffy Duck in there because Carly Simon has mentioned that cartoon character in many interviews

Looking at the history of this page it asks where is there an E and an R in Daffy Duck, well I've seen every Daffy Duck cartoon and five of them Daffy Duck has said his middle initial is R And there's an E in it that if you say Daffy Duck really fast it sounds like Daf-e

Now you still might consider it a load of bull BUT there have been many cases where singers like to play big pranks and this could be one of the cases —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.101 (talk • contribs)

I have checked on the I.P. address 203.25.140.101. It belongs to a cable-company, one of thousands they own, and they move them around. But on the date the preceding comment was posted this IP address was assigned by that cable-company to their service-subscriber Daffy Duck, as he mounted an astute double-bluff to avoid identification by the song. Daffy was indeed born (or show me the birth-certificate that says otherwise, huh?) "Daffyelikovskivitchnyik R. Duck" (an obviously Muscovy Duck name) with Warner-Bros. shortening it to "Daffy". Before the trust-busting it was legal for movie-makers to own chains of theaters, and the alternative to shortening Mr. D.R. Duck's name was spending $500 million on a wider marquee for every Warner Bros. theater. "Daffy" is also clearly the "David" of the re-recorded versions. If you orate "Daffy" several times in succession it's the same sound as many "David"s orated in succession. If you don't believe me then try it the next time you're in a waiting-room, tightly packed into public transportation, or are queued up to get something.74.64.104.99 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]
But how does that fit in with the line, "you're with some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend"? What close friends does Daffy have? Bugs Bunny? Maybe Porky Pig? Neither of them was married at the time the song was written. ;-) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe there have also been cases where anonymous Wikipedia contributors have played pranks and this could be one of them. (No evidence has been provided that Daffy's middle initial is R.) --Metropolitan90 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Severn Darden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.1.177 (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: Maybe Carly Simon wasn't singing about any guy in particular, & just wanted to write a song about someone who a complete egomaniac...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.63.5 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days[edit]

Should we mention anywhere the scene where Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey sing "You're So Vain"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.18.130 (talk • contribs)

Lyrics[edit]

um ... isn't it a copyright violation to include the lyrics? Salamurai 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Removing now. -- Annie D 09:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she actually did tell someone?[edit]

I think I heard about an auction where she actually told the winner the name, and then he couldn't tell it to anyone?


Illiteracy much?[edit]

Taylor doesn't have an E in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.3.99 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But his first name, James, does, genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.169.48 (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical[edit]

"Despite these guesses and many interviews asking who it was, to this day Carly Simon has never publicly acknowledged in full whom the song is about. She commented in an interview that it was about "many vain men I've known in my life". This may make the line "you're so vain, you probably think this song is about you" more logical than if it were about any specific man."

No it doesn't. --Quoth nevermore 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence. Sibenordy 06:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody recall Carly Simon finally admitting, fairly recently (within the past few years), that the song, although vague enough to refer to several different people (most popularly Warren Beatty, I believe), was originally written to/about Alfred Hitchcock?

I'm pretty sure it was she who mentioned this rather than speculation by a third party, and that it was a verbal exchange rather than in print, but I haven't any way to confirm it, so it's possible that I'm mistaken. Is anyone else aware of any reputable sources that corroborate this? -=( Alexis 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC) )=-[reply]

Irony and citation[edit]

Regarding the following:

Ironically, although the song is critical of a vain man thinking the song is about him, it is still technically about him.

I would have thought it would be worth mentioning there was never a video made for this song and so Simon had a contest for the best video made by fans for this song. welby99


This may be true, but it wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia article to assert it editorially. Per this site's no original research policy this type of critical analysis would need a citation to a reliable source such as a music review. If you provide a source for that then great; please readd with citation. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kind of a problem with Wikipedia. I agree that it's an editorial observation, but for it to be allowed if some reviewer pointed it out but not when one of us exposes it for the obvious irony that it is strikes me as a bit capricious. MaxVolume (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Except that it's not really about him, technically it's about the songwriters experience , as all songs are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the singer's "experiences" are pretty much all experiences of - and opinions about - the mysterious "you"... so the song *is* pretty much about whoever "you" is supposed to be, expressed through that filter... overlooking that the words "you", "your" and "you're" appear 45 times in the lyrics... Unless the verses and chorus supposedly refer to different individuals ? The verses are about a long-lost lover, but the singer pauses to sing the chorus to their bemused - and vain - pet cat who thinks the song is about *him* ?
86.25.121.33 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Beatty[edit]

I'm not suggesting the article be changed. I just can't resist the observation that since Warren Beatty clearly thinks the song is about him, it's probably about him. Lexo (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commet-of the several names mentioned as being inspiration for "YOur So Vain" only Beatty has a Nova Scotia connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.102 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but anyone has access to Nova Scotia, esp. anyone with a Lear jet, so the fact that Beatty's mother was born there is pretty much irrelevant. MaxVolume (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a Lear Jet and didn't have access to Nova Scotia... okay, admittedly the Lear Jet was made by Matchbox...
86.25.120.100 (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Australian-born radio announcer once asked Carly Simon during an interview whom the song "You're So Vain" was about. She said it was about Warren Beatty. Eligius (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please post an URL or some means by which we can verify that. Or even just the name of the Australian interviewer.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Carole King[edit]

This article says that Carole King recorded You're So Vain - I can find no evidence of her ever recording the song. Can someone either verify or remove the reference? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.146.171 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The eclipse[edit]

There was a newspaper article during one of the eclipses about a rock-star eclipse party. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Is there any point to the two pictures of the path of the eclipse, I find them quite unclear and don't think they add much especially since a clearer map is included already in the references - Edw400 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing. They should be removed. --74.179.122.47 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Geffen?[edit]

I recently read that Simon finally revealed the subject of the song, and that it turned out to be David Geffen, the head of her record label at the time. True? 64.237.160.217 (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read it? It would certainly be important to be included here if it were from a WP:Reliable source. Doc talk 05:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may have read it in the British newspaper 'The Daily Mail,' 26 February 2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1253964/Carly-Simon-finally-reveals-subject-Youre-So-Vain--record-producer-David-Geffen.html Eligius (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it can't be used as a Wikipedia source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website 2.31.164.110 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-release and 2009 video contest[edit]

I would have thought it would be worth mentioning Simon's website conducted a contest of the best video made by fans for the re-release of the song in 2009. The winner was Brett Bisogno. Carly screened and judged all of the entries herself. The winner won $10,000, and was featured on AOL Music’s Spinner.com and screened at 2010's Tribeca Film Festival, where the winner had the opportunity to meet Carly Simon. A rather unique marketing concept for the re-release of the song. July 2011--welby99

Order needed in "Subject" section[edit]

I've tagged for cleanup the section "Subject of the song" (like there's anything else in this article that would likely need so much attention!). The prose seems good, the references are (mostly) solid, but there's no overall order, which is leading to frequent repetition and overlap. I briefly considered immediately doing a chronological order with an summarizing intro (even rewriting several separate-but-related statements in my head with combined references), but since I'm trying to unwind my 4-hours-and-counting wiki-walk, I'm going to leave it for other editors for now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is still needing done. The section is a convoluted and - seemingly - contradictory mess. 87.115.99.213 (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A song about no one in particular?[edit]

Has it ever been considered possible that the song wasn’t about anyone? I ask because the lyric “You’re so vain, I bet you think this song is about you” makes no sense if it was about an actual person. What I mean is if it was about an actual man, then why would he be vain for thinking it is about him? The thought crossed my mind that the song was meant to expose the typical type of man Ms. Simon had known in her circle and was sometimes romanced by by having claimants come out of the woodwork to prove her point. That would make more sense regarding the lyric I referred to. That would be ironic, which is perhaps how she intended it.

This entire issue might be Ms. Simon’s private joke which she has since entertained for her private amusement and to keep up the song’s popularity as a side benefit? Or else it was originally a private joke and now she feels forced to attribute it to someone in particular on an ex-post-facto basis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Carly Simon is the daughter of Simon of Simon&Schuster, and probably learned a thing or two about marketing. Many of her claims throughout the years are irresolvably contradictory. I don't see some non-verified 'secret' that she supposedly is keeping and whispering in ears, to the furtherance of the spin, is dignified material for inclusion in (even) a pop-music Wikipedia article.
I vote the entire 'who' material be edited out of the article. And I don't mean most of it; lest it re-metastasize. All of it. If that means just the song, its author, personnel, date popularity ratings, etc., so be it. JohndanR 21:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Considering a huge part of the critical and public reaction to the song over the years has been speculation of who the subject(s) are, to remove the material would leave this article woefully inadequate to the point I'd call it the single worst article on Wikipedia because it would so thoroughly fail to actually cover the subject. In short, stupid idea. oknazevad (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar solo[edit]

It features a guitar solo by whom? Is "X?" some artist? Jaruni (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entry, which was added a couple of days ago. According to my vinyl copy of Simon's No Secrets album, all guitar work on that particular song was done by Jimmy Ryan, who does not even have a page here. Doc talk 00:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weller book[edit]

Is there a reason the Weller book (Girls Like Us) doesn't have its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotwisdom (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon on the record re: Beatty, and a passage unsupported by citation[edit]

If it hasn't already been added, Simon in an on-the-record interview with People, promoting her memoir, confirmed, her word, that Beatty is the subject of one verse.

That said, this article's claim that "In a 1989 interview, Simon acknowledged that the song is a little bit about Warren Beatty, but said the subject of the song is a composite of three men from her days in Los Angeles" is completely unsupported by the fan site making this claim. The fan site says:

For the record, Simon acknowledges the song is a little about Beatty; it's a composite of three men from her L.A. days.
"I never took him seriously. He was great fun and very, very, bright. But noooo ... as a boyfriend.
"In the beginning Warren was pretty good at pretending he was only smooth on the outside and a bowl of jelly on the inside. But he doesn't do that secondary act very well now."
--Carly Simon, Fame Magazine 1989

Despite what the anonymous fan who wrote that "for the record" line claims, the quote that site itself gives does not support the claim. That false-citation passage cited to a fan site cannot stay. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds in My Coffee[edit]

Is it worth adding to the references section, the story behind the phrase "clouds in my coffee"?

"It came from an airplane flight that I took with Billy Mernit, who was my friend and piano player at the time. As I got my coffee, there were clouds outside the window of the airplane and you could see the reflection in the cup of coffee. Billy said to me, 'Look at the clouds in your coffee'." Carly liked the phrase and used that reference to an "illusion" to describe her dreams of having a relationship with the subject of the song. [1]

76.221.213.176 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20121017081152/http://www.carlysimon.com/You're_So_Vain.html#.VkzPw7-kcVc

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on You're So Vain. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on You're So Vain. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on You're So Vain. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Learjet up" or "Lear down"[edit]

First things first: Wikipedia generally does not use wikilinks inside of direct quotes.

Gimelgort seems to be fairly well frustrated over a change to the lyrics, feeling it should be "Then you flew your Lear down to Nova Scotia" rather than "...Learjet up...". While it's certainly not edit warring (with 3 edits spread out over 5 years), without a source to establish certainty, it's not productive either.

Various sites offer lyrics. All of them are user edited (not reliable). So, I looked for something official. I found a scan of the inner LP sleeve to "No Secrets" which clearly says "Lear jet up".[1] While it is certainly possible that the printed lyrics vary from the lyrics as performed, the printed version is undoubtedly an -- if not the -- official version. (An archived page from her official site gives the same version.[2])- SummerPhDv2.0 20:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I've always believed that the lyrics as sung during the recorded performance, not as printed, are the canonical version, but I suppose that's just my personal feeling.
Incidentally, in the original recording Simon clearly sings "Learjet up", which is normal, reasonable English. "Learjet" was the common term for such private jets, even when not actually built by Lear, kind of like how "Piper Cub" was used for any little private single-engine prop aircraft. And "flying up" (or "driving up" or "traveling up" in general) to somewhere north of the speaker's viewpoint is a standard English expression, from the usual practice of putting north at the top of maps. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, this topic is here[edit]

I did search the Talk-page and I can't find any discussion of the rumor that the subject of the song owned a race-horse that won at Saratoga. The race-horse was named "Naturally". Hence, "up to Saratoga, and your horse (Naturally) won". Someone who is familiar with such things can find the official logs for ownership of every horse that ran in the State of New York at some beginning-point before the 1970s, right? If this rumor is incorrect, it should be EASY to confirm that it's incorrect IF you have the know-how (which I obviously lack). If the rumor is correct, it pretty much settles the question because that's exactly how a song-writer would go about being cryptic.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Failed verification/possible original research on which eclipse the song references.[edit]

I have placed failed verification and original research tags on the section referring to the total eclipse in Nova Scotia. The two sources referenced about the eclipse only show the path of the eclipse. Neither state that the 1972 eclipse is the one referenced in the song. The sentence that gives reasoning for why it was more likely the 1972 eclipse than the 1970 eclipse is unreferenced and rings of original research. This is also mentioned on the pages of the respective eclipses. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:You%27re_So_Vain&oldid=1218160417"