This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Does anyone else think that this song is stupid because it completely relies on "Sweet Home Alabama" for it's existance. I mean it is almost literally the same song w/ different lyrics. I keep thinking that they're playing oldies on modern hits radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, what rhymes with "things" oh I know, how about "things"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
if it is not a discussion board, why did i click discussion to get here? At least he credited the original artists - <cough>Vanilla Ice</cough> 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Werewolves in London is mainly used, Sweet Home Alabama is only used when he says Sweet Home Alabama and for solo and outro , which is actually Skynyrd's Billy Powell on the track. The beat is a spead up Billie Jean as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can look forward to hearing this one "all summer long"? EVCM (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't you have to have permissions to copy other artists chord pergressions? I don't see anywhere on the net where he asked for permission. Is this legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the title of the section that discusses the song's chord progression, from Trivia to Analysis. However I am not sure I agree with the author's analysis of the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen an amateur remake of a song do that simply because there was no way to buy the original song on its own. Could we discuss why it's felt that's unworthy of being covered? It's not worth starting an edit war over. DackAttac (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It is definitely worthy of being mentioned, as it is part of this song's history. Because of Kid Rock's refusal to allow his music to be digitally downloaded, the "Hit Masters" version has now overtaken Rock's version on the U.S. Hot 100 (Rock is at 25, Hit Masters now at 19) because all of the digital sales are attributed to the new version. It's an unusual occurrence and will be interesting to see how it plays out. Definitely a notable development. - eo (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a small blurb at the bottom. I've made it as concise as possible - as lame as a karaoke version is, its appearance on a major music chart is notable. Hopefully this will suffice. - eo (talk)
saying the chart at the bottom needs to be updated
Not yet its still No 1 in all those countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the article says "The song uses samples of Warren Zevon's "Werewolves of London" " but then later in the article it says "It does not use samples"
Make up your mind!!! Music sampling is "[...] the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or element of a new recording. "
So yes, he sampled 3 songs for most of the beat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing he rerecorded the chordes in question with studio musicians and used this instead of the original recordings, thus allowing him to only pay the songwriter and not the record label as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadshell (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Y'all should thank me. I made a big contribution to the article. I was the one who added The Rock Heroes topic along with the charts and information. I even researched that song version and found all the right sources. No one was going to add it in there, but luckily I did. Hometown Kid (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Not notable enough for non-parantheses title?
I mean, you know, I'm not an expert on this, but does not this article actually earn thetitle All Summer Long without parentheses. Many more readers are looking for this #1 song when they tipe in "All Summer Long" in the search field, and not for some 1964 album by The Beach Boys. It would not be a problem for me to keep this song at this title,but I just think it would be better to do it like I proposed.Any opinions?--The Evil IP address (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
All Summer Long (Kid Rock song) → All Summer Long — I think that that Evil IP above raises a good point. There are far more incoming links and hits for this song than for the Beach Boys album. This song was a multi-national Number One hit from just this past year, and I have no doubt that it's more popular than the Beach Boys album. I have every right to imagine that someone typing in "All Summer Long" is far more likely to be looking for this song. Therefore, I propose that this page be moved to All Summer Long and the Beach Boys album to All Summer Long (album). — Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that an attempt to have the article for the Beach Boys song moved to the very same title currently being proposed was proposed less than a month ago for the same reason and that it was stongly opposed. Please see Talk:All Summer Long for more detail. Has there been any change since then because the consensus seemed quite clear at that time that the Kid Rock album should not be the primary topic. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
it is available on the UK itunes as is Roll On, Cocky n Rock n Roll Pain Train188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: disambiguated. I !voted in the discussion, but as it was unanimous I am also closing it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
All Summer Long (a Beach Boys album) has had 7434 views in March compared to 10340 for All Summer Long (Kid Rock song). That's a difference of about 30%, enough for me to think that more people are indeed looking for the song than the Beach Boys album. This pattern is also evident only two months into this year, with pageview stats with 735 (Kid Rock) to 473 (Beach Boys), also very close to a 30% margin in favor of Kid Rock. And this is not taking into consideration that I found at least 10 links to All Summer Long that should be pointing to this article instead of the Beach Boys song.
The last attempt at moving either article was shot down entirely due to arguments of recentism, with no arguments whatsoever regarding page view statistics. The numbers are plain as day that about 30% more readers are looking for the Kid Rock song than the Beach Boys album — I don't know if that's quite enough to call WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on Kid Rock, but it does suggest that the Beach Boys album is not the biggest thing people are looking for with that name. Therefore, I propose that either a.) the Kid Rock song be moved to All Summer Long and the Beach Boys album to All Summer Long (album), or b.)All Summer Long be made into a disambiguation page separating the two. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
All Summer Long is a seminal album in the history of rock, second in the Beach Boys oeuvre only to Pet Sounds. There's no way the Kid Rock song (which never even hit #1 in the U.S.) is the primary topic only four years after its release. At some point we do have to take encyclopedic value into account. I'd be fine with a disambiguation page, though, since the two songs together probably sap enough hits from the album to justify it. PowersT 19:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
In addition, I would recommend that a notice be placed on Talk:All Summer Long since this move request would affect that page. PowersT 19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – it doesn't make sense to claim a primarytopic for such an ambiguous title. Support making All Summer Long a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment I am fine with the disambiguation approach, and have amended the RM accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguate. I don't think one song has clear PRIMARYTOPIC supremacy over the other. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguate. Oppose move, as 30 percent difference in page views is not enough of a difference to claim that one is overwhelming the primary topic. I think disambiguation would be the best move here. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguate clearly no primary topic. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Point of order: even though this move request now directly affects the page All Summer Long, no notice has been placed on the talk page reflecting that fact. PowersT 14:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Left a note there. Jenks24 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment RMbot should do this automatically (though it does not currently do this), we should request this feature be added to it, since it supposedly leaves messages on multimoves. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that this request did not begin as a mulit-move and hasn't been switched over to one. It's my understanding that if the multi-move template is used correctly then a note is left on the relevant talk pages. Jenks24 (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There's no need for a multi-move now (it probably should have been one in the first place, though). Maybe the real problem is that RMbot only notifies pages proposed to be moved, rather than those pages plus pages that are proposed targets? PowersT 14:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
That is a problem, since they sometimes exist, in a not too infrequent number of cases, or are redirects to other topics. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguate as per Dicklyon and the traffic stats presented. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.