Talk:Alabama Song

Strange assertions
There are a couple of things I find strange or perhaps wrong in this article and it would be nice if knowledgeable editors could have a look and advise.

1. The Weill song, we are told, was written in 1927. Without hardly pausing for breath the article then says "The song style is typical of German schlager music, which was popular in Europe from the 1960s through the 1970s." I find this bizarre - how can a 1927 song typify a 60s/70s style? Surely the assertion is backwards, if it's even worth mentioning at all. What do you think?


 * I agree and cannot hear anything that resembles schlager in the song. Since no-one has responded to this for a long time, I will now delete that sentence. 130.149.15.232 (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

2. When it talks about covers, the article mentions a 1964 cover as "very early on". Very early on in what exactly? This seems, at first sight, to be a rather popcentric comment. It's not exactly early in the song's history - it had been written for about 37 years by then. It might be early on in the writer's view of the history of pop covers, but it gives a very odd spin to the article, as if there was NO musical history or popular music between 1927 and 1964. Can this be what was intended?

Thanks in advance for having a look at these issues, from a long-dead ex-user 82.45.248.177 (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Pointedly, Bowie did not change the "pretty boys" line, unlike Morrison"
Hang on - I'm listening to the version on The Best Of David Bowie 1980/87 and he's definitely singing "Oh show me the way to the next little girl...I must have little girl..." don't have the album credits or the single to check - did he re-record it6 for the BBC/EP version and is it the single version that has the original "...pretty boy..." lyrics?109.224.137.121 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, this change that the article keeps harping about seems to me pretty perfunctory and not really worth pointing out--boy for a girl singer, girl for a boy singer. Zillions of songs have been and are routinely changed in this sort of way without anyone commenting about it. TheScotch (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning (especially given that Morrison apparently didn't always change the line) but it is a basic change and the idea that Bowie or Morrison "misunderstood" anything related to it seems muddle-headed. Removed, pending clarification or source. — Llywelyn II   01:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Rose of Alabamy; Rose of Alabama
Why is there no article about this song? Isnt it an important song in north-american history? 46.115.69.92 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Genre of Doors version
I wouldn't call the Doors version "psychedelic rock" as the article currently does. I'd say it's about equal measures ragtime, baroque pop/chamber pop, cabaret/music hall, and Medieval/early Modernity cantastoria/murder ballad. Also, if legitimate sources can be found, I'm pretty certain that Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! can be called an important influence for the Doors version of the song. --2003:71:4E16:4B20:B888:5233:A0A5:3A88 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A correction: I've just seen that if anything, The Doors can only have influenced the way in which The Beatles recorded Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!, because their Alabama Song was published a month before The Beatles recorded their song. --2003:71:4E16:4B20:B888:5233:A0A5:3A88 (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Mathilde Wesendonck?

 * Infobox: Text by Bertolt Brecht, translated by Mathilde Wesendonck

She died in 1902, when Brecht was all of 4 years old. It could not possibly have been her. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thank you! I've corrected. Looks like I didn't blank the infobox temp fully before reusing it from a different German song... Nice catch! ElfLady64 (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)