Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Cover to Cover: Lou Reed v A Tribe Called Quest - Walk on the Wild side/Can you kick it

Yes, it's back. Every Wednesday, one a week, accept no alternatives.

Two versions of the same song or should I say Herbie Hancock's bass line. Listen without prejudice and say which you prefer and why.

The original tale of the sleazy side of NYC from the immortal Lou Reed from 1972 or the 1990 sampled cover, also very much New York, by new school hip hop artists a Tribe Called Quest.







«1

Comments

  • edited May 17
    Definitely Lou for me. Really disliked the TCQ version when it came out but ok with it now.
  • Love both versions, torn, but being a massive fan of Tribe Called Quest I will go for them....
  • Appears Lou was a big hip hop fan and didn't mind when TCQ sampled the song. Only they hadn't ask for permission so being Lou he took all the royalties.

    Still amazed that the line "And she never lost her head, even when she was giving head" was played on 1970s BBC

  • No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.
  • Doing CTC would be worth it just for @Greenie 's rants.

    ; - )
  • Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    Harsh, but true.

    Lou Reed all day long.
  • Lou Reed, accept no imitations.
  • edited May 17

    Doing CTC would be worth it just for @Greenie 's rants.

    ; - )

    I'm glad I didn't let you down H. Anyway its constructive criticism.
  • TCQ wins for me
  • Lou Reed by a small margin.
  • Sponsored links:


  • The great Lou Reed
  • Greenie said:

    Doing CTC would be worth it just for @Greenie 's rants.

    ; - )

    I'm glad I didn't let you down H. Anyway its constructive criticism.
    I love people who share my passion for music even if we don't share the same opinions on that music.

    I'm a huge Lou/Velvets fan, one of my top five artists but I really like the TCQ version which us why it makes a good cover to cover imho
  • Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
  • Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    I dont understand what your point is?
    My point is this, and this is where Im at, any artist that samples, steals the heart or riff of a song, and just adds their own lyrics, or turns it into a car crash by adding (mixing) a different drum patten and then passes it off as their own work is a musical thief, they should just write their own stuff, but they cant, why, because maybe they dont have the creative intelligence.
    Its a bit like copying DaVinchi's Mona Lisa and popping a hat on her and saying, 'this is mine, I created this', just because you like it doesn't make it an original quality piece of art/music.
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




    Very vague. Which bits on Tomorrow Never Knows were sampled?

    I don't agree with Greenie and I agree that people have been ripping off others riffs, tunes etc for ages (Loads of Led Zepp is ripped off and uncredited).
  • edited May 17

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




    If Hip Hop artists write all their own stuff and dont nick another artists superior material to use as a vehicle to peddle their work, then excellent...if not then its thieving crap......but if you like it mate, then for you its great. For me as a musician, I hate musical thiefs, It totally devalues and artist's work and ethos.
    Also Tomorrow Never Knows had nothing sampled on it, It was written by Lennon, and as far as I know all the instruments were played by the band and/or George Martin. It also had 5 loops on it, but those loops were created by the band and/or sound engineer. The Sitar was played by Harrison, sampling wasn't around then (as we know it), the artists had to create the sounds themselves and because they had the creative talent, they could.
    When all said and done, I do find it interesting how different people see music, it is emotive but ultimately subjective. And apologies for hijacking the thread.
  • Sponsored links:


  • This might have been a better example


    Or this


  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    I dont understand what your point is?
    My point is this, and this is where Im at, any artist that samples, steals the heart or riff of a song, and just adds their own lyrics, or turns it into a car crash by adding (mixing) a different drum patten and then passes it off as their own work is a musical thief, they should just write their own stuff, but they cant, why, because maybe they dont have the creative intelligence.
    Its a bit like copying DaVinchi's Mona Lisa and popping a hat on her and saying, 'this is mine, I created this', just because you like it doesn't make it an original quality piece of art/music.
    To use a recent example - have you listened to To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar? I understand you may not enjoy Hip Hop music, but to deny that Kendrick is lacking 'creative intelligence' because this album uses lots of samples, would be so ridiculously wide of the mark.

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




    Very vague. Which bits on Tomorrow Never Knows were sampled?
    The Beatles example is probably not the best as the sampled tape loops of music they maybe wrote themselves? My point is sampling (stealing) music is not just a Hip Hop specific thing. John Lennon did 'sample' the lyrics from crazy book called the Tibetan book of the dead though - guess John Lennon had no creative intelligence for doing that though.
  • Lets all agree that it's all music and as long as it's not free form jazz or heavy metal it's OK.
  • edited May 17

    Lets all agree that it's all music and as long as it's not free form jazz or heavy metal it's OK.

    Now now Henners... let's not get silly here
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    I dont understand what your point is?
    My point is this, and this is where Im at, any artist that samples, steals the heart or riff of a song, and just adds their own lyrics, or turns it into a car crash by adding (mixing) a different drum patten and then passes it off as their own work is a musical thief, they should just write their own stuff, but they cant, why, because maybe they dont have the creative intelligence.
    Its a bit like copying DaVinchi's Mona Lisa and popping a hat on her and saying, 'this is mine, I created this', just because you like it doesn't make it an original quality piece of art/music.
    To use a recent example - have you listened to To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar? I understand you may not enjoy Hip Hop music, but to deny that Kendrick is lacking 'creative intelligence' because this album uses lots of samples, would be so ridiculously wide of the mark.

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




    Very vague. Which bits on Tomorrow Never Knows were sampled?
    The Beatles example is probably not the best as the sampled tape loops of music they maybe wrote themselves? My point is sampling (stealing) music is not just a Hip Hop specific thing. John Lennon did 'sample' the lyrics from crazy book called the Tibetan book of the dead though - guess John Lennon had no creative intelligence for doing that though.
    Totally disagree mate, stealing is stealing no matter how you polish it up and should be called out.
    George Harrison stated that the idea for the lyrics came from Leary, Alpert, and Metzler's book.
    Your last line is just a bit childish, bottom line for me is dont steal other peoples musical ideas, dont steal them and put them together with a patented drum beat (incidentally made by a machine) and pass them off as your own, just so you have a vehicle for your own lyrics, if they do then they have no credibility, they only impress the easily impressed.
  • Not sure why The Beatles are being cited as paragons of creativity. “They were good looking boys with great haircuts and British accents but as far as their music was concerned they weren’t anything new,” Professor Armand Leroi, chief author of 'The evolution of popular music: USA 1960–2010'.

    http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/5/150081
  • Stig said:

    Not sure why The Beatles are being cited as paragons of creativity. “They were good looking boys with great haircuts and British accents but as far as their music was concerned they weren’t anything new,” Professor Armand Leroi, chief author of 'The evolution of popular music: USA 1960–2010'.

    http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/5/150081

    Lol, That album of theirs, Sargent Peppers something or other.....whatever happened to that?

    BTW - Im not a huge Beatles fan, however their legacy to popular music can never be undone.
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    I dont understand what your point is?
    My point is this, and this is where Im at, any artist that samples, steals the heart or riff of a song, and just adds their own lyrics, or turns it into a car crash by adding (mixing) a different drum patten and then passes it off as their own work is a musical thief, they should just write their own stuff, but they cant, why, because maybe they dont have the creative intelligence.
    Its a bit like copying DaVinchi's Mona Lisa and popping a hat on her and saying, 'this is mine, I created this', just because you like it doesn't make it an original quality piece of art/music.
    To use a recent example - have you listened to To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar? I understand you may not enjoy Hip Hop music, but to deny that Kendrick is lacking 'creative intelligence' because this album uses lots of samples, would be so ridiculously wide of the mark.

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




    Very vague. Which bits on Tomorrow Never Knows were sampled?
    The Beatles example is probably not the best as the sampled tape loops of music they maybe wrote themselves? My point is sampling (stealing) music is not just a Hip Hop specific thing. John Lennon did 'sample' the lyrics from crazy book called the Tibetan book of the dead though - guess John Lennon had no creative intelligence for doing that though.
    Totally disagree mate, stealing is stealing no matter how you polish it up and should be called out.
    George Harrison stated that the idea for the lyrics came from Leary, Alpert, and Metzler's book.
    Your last line is just a bit childish, bottom line for me is dont steal other peoples musical ideas, dont steal them and put them together with a patented drum beat (incidentally made by a machine) and pass them off as your own, just so you have a vehicle for your own lyrics, if they do then they have no credibility, they only impress the easily impressed.
    Debate is a good thing, many things in this world are not black and white and most people will have different views on things. However I find the ending of your latest comment to be rather small minded and uninformed. I presume you are saying because I like Hip Hop music that I am easily impressed? If you were to come over to my house and see my vinly collection you would see I have and enjoy music from most genres you can think off. Led Zeppelin to Death Grips, Beatles to A Tribe Called Quest, Bob Marley to Swans, Muddy Waters to Sufjan Stevens. Maybe I am easily impressed, maybe that's why I enjoy music so much.

    This reddit thread argues my points better than I could:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1k2sc2/sampling_music_is_stealing_cmv/
  • Lou Reed's most interesting work was the thrash metal album he did with Metallica a few years back...
  • Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    I dont understand what your point is?
    My point is this, and this is where Im at, any artist that samples, steals the heart or riff of a song, and just adds their own lyrics, or turns it into a car crash by adding (mixing) a different drum patten and then passes it off as their own work is a musical thief, they should just write their own stuff, but they cant, why, because maybe they dont have the creative intelligence.
    Its a bit like copying DaVinchi's Mona Lisa and popping a hat on her and saying, 'this is mine, I created this', just because you like it doesn't make it an original quality piece of art/music.
    To use a recent example - have you listened to To Pimp A Butterfly by Kendrick Lamar? I understand you may not enjoy Hip Hop music, but to deny that Kendrick is lacking 'creative intelligence' because this album uses lots of samples, would be so ridiculously wide of the mark.

    Greenie said:

    Greenie said:

    No comparison really is there, Lou Reeds is a timeless quality piece of work, that other thing is just a collection of shit noises (apart from the bass) with some talentless fool jabbering over the top.

    A typical uneducated and 'talentless' response by someone who does not understand or clearly listen to hip hop music.

    Lou Reeds version is much better by the way.
    Not really, its thieving crap.


    Guess this is thieving crap as well?
    lost me on that?
    I assume Greenie's labeling of 'Can You Kick It' as 'thieving crap' is in reference to this songs use of sampling (something that is very common in the genre of Hip Hop music). As we all know 'Can You Kick It' actually uses multiple samples not just Lou Reeds 'Walk on the Wild Side'.

    My somewhat vague point is sampling was around well before Hip Hop ever came about. Many people are quick to compartmentalise Hip Hop as a 'collection of shit noise with talentless fools jabbering over the top'. There are many, many complex and innovative Hip Hop albums out there, just because the music is not to your taste does not mean the artists are not talented or the music is shit.




    Very vague. Which bits on Tomorrow Never Knows were sampled?
    The Beatles example is probably not the best as the sampled tape loops of music they maybe wrote themselves? My point is sampling (stealing) music is not just a Hip Hop specific thing. John Lennon did 'sample' the lyrics from crazy book called the Tibetan book of the dead though - guess John Lennon had no creative intelligence for doing that though.
    Totally disagree mate, stealing is stealing no matter how you polish it up and should be called out.
    George Harrison stated that the idea for the lyrics came from Leary, Alpert, and Metzler's book.
    Your last line is just a bit childish, bottom line for me is dont steal other peoples musical ideas, dont steal them and put them together with a patented drum beat (incidentally made by a machine) and pass them off as your own, just so you have a vehicle for your own lyrics, if they do then they have no credibility, they only impress the easily impressed.
    Debate is a good thing, many things in this world are not black and white and most people will have different views on things. However I find the ending of your latest comment to be rather small minded and uninformed. I presume you are saying because I like Hip Hop music that I am easily impressed? If you were to come over to my house and see my vinly collection you would see I have and enjoy music from most genres you can think off. Led Zeppelin to Death Grips, Beatles to A Tribe Called Quest, Bob Marley to Swans, Muddy Waters to Sufjan Stevens. Maybe I am easily impressed, maybe that's why I enjoy music so much.

    This reddit thread argues my points better than I could:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1k2sc2/sampling_music_is_stealing_cmv/
    Mate, like I said earlier, its totally subjective, you think you are right, I think I am, my point about easily impressed, is that a lot of music fans dont know that the music they love is stolen, thats all. Maybe I could have phrased it better. BUT nothing musically pisses me off more and most of the many musicians I know, than when acts nick other musicians work and pass it off as their own.
    The Reddit article is interesting, if an artist agrees that another artist can sample some of his/her work, then thats up to them, as long as they get the royalties and credits on the album, of course however, in a lot of cases they dont, and maybe cant afford court time to get said royalties and recognition. Consequently a lot of fans dont realise that their fav Hip Hop artist is not really what they purport to be.....and when its pointed out, they get all defensive.
    At the risk of sounding patronising (I'm not) thanks for the debate, its been interesting hearing another POV.
Sign In or Register to comment.