Talk:Walk on the Wild Side (Lou Reed song)

Untitled

Can we start a discussion on the rights/wrongs of calling all Lou Reed articles "LGBT articles"? I guess this can extend to others also.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TriniTriggs (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 June 2005

edit: Sorry, I didn't consider the song's content...— Preceding unsigned comment added by TriniTriggs (talk • contribs) 01:05, 22 June 2005

"Scatological"?

How is the song "scatological"? I can't think of a single mention of feces or anything related. I am changing this to "occasionally scatological lyrics" to "lyrics touching on topics such as transexuality and oral sex".-- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but 'scatological' has more meanings than the narrow one of 'to do with excrement'. Check out Merriam-Webster. I'll change it back because it's a more concise way of expressing the same thing. Brequinda 14:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it can have that meaning, but (1) its primary meaning is still excrement (2) using this term to refer to people's sexual practices is pejorative and demeaning and (3) this vague term is less informative to anyone who does not already know the song. I am restoring the longer, more precise wording. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

scatology |skaˌtɒlədʒi| noun an interest in or preoccupation with excrement and excretion. • obscene literature that is concerned with excrement and excretion. DERIVATIVES scatological |-təˌlɒdʒɪk(ə)l| adjective ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from Greek skōr, skat- ‘dung’ + -logy . Compare with scat 3 . 121.45.127.83 02:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're all talking crap, haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.94.196 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad the term "scatalogical" was removed, and would remove it myself if it hadn't been. It isn't accurate, appropriate, or encyclopaedic. Just because it barely fits, by the dictionary definition, does not make it the best choice, and it isn't. Kudos to Jmabel! --Ben Culture (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The use of an interval?

The article currently contains this:

"featuring the extensive use of an interval and the major tenth respectively, which was unusual in pop music till then."

This sounds very much as if it has been miscopied from a likely reputable source by someone who doesn't know what the words mean. Any piece of music contains "an interval" - in fact, several. The word 'respectively' doesn't make much sense here either. Perhaps someone who knows the song and knows about music could rewrite this?
Brequinda 14:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's here: http://www.loadofold.com/boots/flowers.html. I'll try to fix the article. —This unsigned comment was added by 64.0.58.18 (talk • contribs) 12 March 2006.
• Actually a major tenth interval does not exist. It's is a Major 3rd was and is probably one of the most commonly used interval in popular Music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.139.239 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe the interval in question is actually a major ninth... G natural to A natural an octave up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.85.240 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2010
    • No, it IS a tenth. E over C, and A over F (the major ninth would be quite a distinctive difference!) Yes, a tenth is equivalent to a major third plus one octave, but calling it a tenth is perfectly legitimate. What we are talking about are intervals; saying "an interval and the major tenth" is nonsense, like saying "I own a house and a home". --Ben Culture (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Probably one of the most commonly used interval[s] in popular [m]usic"? Is that supposed to sound authoritative? You really can't write a song, in any form, without using a major third interval. It's like you're saying "Wood is one of the most commonly used materials in building a house". --Ben Culture (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not like saying, "I own a house and a home". A house, as Hal David and Burt Bacharach once poignantly explained, is not a home. (And a chair is not a house.) TheScotch (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      • .. although a chair can make a home, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    • But no mention of "interval" any more, it seems. So looks like the musical elements part of the article is ok, with at least one good source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 November 2013
• I am temporarily camouflaging my following (unintentionally and prematurely saved) mess, until i can rest & explain coherently.

   The foregoing chaotic discussion was burdened by being carried on both without acknowledgement of the lack of context in the focal phrase "an interval and the major tenth", and in the absence of any acknowledgement that the word "respectively" always refers to two parallel pairs of relationships, as in "John and i wrote, respectively, with a pen and a crayon." The ridiculous failure to discuss the relationship between "the major tenth" (which is an interval) and "an (otherwise unspecified, but distinct) interval" is especially deficient in light of (since overwritten) a heretofore undiscussed intervening contrib, whose surely researchable assertions plausibly reflect an unenunciated original intent.

   Examining [the otherwise unacknowledged original sentence] from the original contributor (presumably more intensively involved on a different-language WP) doesn't help directly, but ...

--Jerzy•t 22:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

In the Musical section it says Lou Reed sometimes plays a D minor Chord instead of D major. There is no evidence of this anywhere. The reference to this links to a TAB/Chord page. I have yet to unearth a live performance where Lou Reed plays a D minor or unearth literature which claims he did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8C0:3674:3963:34E6:4BB5:38F (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The Strokes

So are we going to, like, list every time the Strokes do this song and some Wikipedian happens to hear it or hear about it? - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

We now have three. Presumably, this is simply becoming part of their repertoire. - Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed all but one. If anyone wants to expand on The Strokes' love of the song, reference it, and don't add more than one.Brady Clarke 13:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Covers

The AMG lists some 50 covers, if sombody cares; but this should be edited for repeats and disentangled from the old '62 song (Bernstein&David). And Popa Chubby should be added to it: he played it in 1999 (One night live in NY, 2002)al 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wows1.jpg

Image:Wows1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Organizing

I've looked at this page a few times over the past couple of months, and the bottom finally got to me enough that I fixed it. Well, attempted to, anyway. Although, maybe the covers/media references are getting to be too many? It appears to be taking over the article. Granted, this song was influential and is referenced a lot, but it might be getting to the point of too much. Joliefille (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

radio edit

heard radio version for the first time, couldn't make out the replacment lyric. Someone who knows what it is should add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.200.246 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Given that people don't appear to be able to agree on genre, citations would be in order. - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Significance

FWIW, I think it's interesting that the song was covered by Brazilian artists (who have toured throughout South America, Europe and Japan), as it underscores the international appeal of the original. But if you define significance as a uniquely American quality, what can I say. It's not worth my time to get into it, --Rosekelleher (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable source made note of it, that would help establish that it is significant. DonIago (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source, DonIago. You add nothing to wikipedia, all you do is remove sections (in articles you know NOTHING about) and claim they are not relevant. If there isn't a source, do something that would actually help wikipedia and go look for the source yourself. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sennen goroshi. I will look for some better sources, although it will be challenging as I don't know Portuguese. My impression is that BNegão and Autoramas are pretty successful in Brazil. --Rosekelleher (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thunderthighs

   The article says: "The backing vocals are sung by Thunderthighs, a girl group that included founder Dari Lallou together with Karen Friedman, Jacki Campbell and Casey Synge."
   The article on Thunderthighs, citing Discogs, says: "The female trio, consisting of Karen Friedman, Dari Lalou and Casey Synge"
   Allmusic says: Casey Synge, Dari Lalou, Karen Friedman
   The Guardian says: "Dari Lalou, Karen Friedman and Casey Synge"
   Jeremy Reed's book says: "Thunderthighs' Karen Friedman, Dari Lalou and Casey Singer..."
   And the colored girls say...
--Rosekelleher (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So who was Jacki Campbell? And should she appear here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you asking me? I don't know, that's why I posted. She didn't appear in any of the sources, so I posted a message here, waited a couple of days, and when no one responded I figured it was a mistake and deleted her name. If anyone wants to add her back in, they can. A source or explanation of some kind would be nice. Rosekelleher (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting - but not conclusive - that the list of members in this article was added in this 2010 edit by an editor, MsLallou, who has made no other edits but could possibly - from their user name - be a person who had some inside information about the singers. Some googling strongly suggests that Dari Lallou is now here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've sent an email asking about it. Rosekelleher (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, I never got a reply. Rosekelleher (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

References

WHAT is this referring to?

"using an edited version of the song without the reference to oral sex."

I was alive and listening to FM radio when this song came out, but cannot recall exactly WHAT this editing refers to. What was it? Is it replacement lyrics? Is it just a shorter song? This article should also, definitively, state EXACTLY when "giving head" was first aired on the public radio in the USA, in this song (date and year). Starhistory22 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to do the research yourself, grouchy. Rosekelleher (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have exact time of day as well? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The source for the claim says: "In the US, RCA took the precaution of issuing radio stations with a cleaned-up version of the song that also replaced the phrase "And the colored girls say" with "And the girls all say." Depending on the regional US market, the song was considered slightly politically incorrect, but DJs tended to play the unexpurgated version regardless." Unless the OP finds a better source, the article can't go beyond that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So you either got colored girls and head, or you just got girls and no head. Sounds a bit racist to me. Either way, as to when it was "first aired on the public radio in the USA", I'm not sure, whichever station or stations did broadcast it, that they would have wanted to overtly advertise the fact? And even if someone had recorded a broadcast, how would one prove that was the first ever? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Image addition

Reed and friends Holly Woodlawn, Jackie Curtis and Joe Dallesandro whom he mentioned in these lyrics --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There may be room in the article for this relevant image. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a collage of 4 apparently unrelated people one of which is a painting. I cannot see how this would improve the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As clearly stated on the image's page at Commons, these people are Lou Reed and three of the his friends (Note: Lou Reed's friends, not mine or anyone's that I know) who are notably mentioned by name in the song's lyrics. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As the collage's file name is not clear that it has anything to do with a particular song maybe it would be interesting to know what the caption would be. Are these people notable and is their relationship with Lou Reed documented and of encyclopedic interest and mentioned in the article? Also one of the images is a painting which would need confirmation that the artist has released it for copyright. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok I get now what the collage represents now. It would have been useful to say who the people were. As the photo was downloaded by a group that holds the rights to a show called Wild side story it is not easy to see whether wild side friends refers to their show or the song as there is no caption proposal. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jackie Curtis Backstage by Gary LeGault.jpg seems to be wholly in the public domain? Is there really any copyright issue with regard to the artist? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that I can see. I think that concern was made here before the image was more carefully investigated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I don't see why I could not be added. It looks like it would make an informative eye-catching addition. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please so do! Since I have a COI problem re info about, & contributions of images by, some persons, I don't know if it would be appropriate for me to add it. I do not know these people, but I do know the person who put the collage together for Swedish WP, to replace an image they didn't want there (of a Swedish group I know performing the song in NYC). Best wishes --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably best to wait a couple of days to see if any other editor objects. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My objection is that it looks horrible. But, I'm not sure that's a valid reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not. But, yes it does look a bit "in your face", doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If it gets added and kept in the article, I can see to it that it also gets improved at Commons. The purple framing color could go, and the portaits could be enhanced. There are better photos of all of them now than there were 6 years ago. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously... as well as the purple borders, it seems very odd to me to include a picture of Reed in the same frame as the three song subjects. If we have good images of those three, and if it is thought important to include their images here (though personally I don't see how it adds to the encyclopedic value of the article, especially as one of them is a painting rather than a photo), why not simply use the three images separately? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Four portraits would be too much I think. Reed knew those 3 people & that's why he wrote about them in the lyric. I'm not interested in a major debate here though, where I'm called on to defend the image at length. I think, conceptually, that it's a good illustration for the article. Anyone who does not think a collage of these 4 faces would be relevant can just say so. It's not for me to decide, nor is it such a big deal. "It looks like it would make an informative eye-catching addition." is the opinion of another user, with which I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have improved the image today. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:IUP, the purpose of an image is not to be "eye-catching", it is "... to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter". In this case, the image does not increase understanding of the subject matter - which is the song and the recordings, not the people named in it. If people want to know what Holly Woodlawn, etc., look like, they will click on the links. And, it's inappropriate for Reed, as the song's writer and performer, to be shown in the same way as the three other people. The longer this discussion goes on, the more I think it's not appropriate to be added to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"inappropriate for Reed, as the song's writer and performer, to be shown in the same way as the three other people" (who were his friends, about whom he wrote the song) - Wow! Where did that come from? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

He has a quite different relationship to the song than the other three, so why show them in the same format? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Because he wrote the song, about them. Obviously. Without them, no song. Without him, no considerable fame for them (though many people know much more about them than about him). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point. He has a quite different relationship to the song than the other three, so why show them in the same format? Let me ask another question. There is already an image of Reed (a contemporaneous one, not the later one that you wish to add) in the infobox, on the record sleeve. What is the encyclopedic value of including another one of him? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pass. I'm not on trial here. Too many personal interpretations & opinions. Mine, yours. What's obvious to me is ridiculous to you, etc. Getting nowhere. We need fresh input. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

£17 or £34?

So how much was Herbie Flowers paid? There seems to be a contradiction in the article. Not only that, but in tonight's Guitar, Drum and Bass, on BBC Four, Flowers said he was paid only £12 for the entire session: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

See my comment below on this and other things re. Herbie Flowers in new section below. Dubmill (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Harmonic analysis

I had to remove the mis-applied term “plagal cadence” as well as the claim that the F chord is a “sixth chord.” Neither of these assertions are present in the referenced article, they are original analysis. (That they are each incorrect is of secondary importance. The term “plagal cadence” applies to a specific end-of-phrase phenomenon, not to alternating motion between I and IV. The IV chord is not a “sixth chord” or inversion; the acoustic bass sounds its lowest F, rendering a root position IV chord.) justcary (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Herbie Flowers: What he did and what he was paid

I have edited the paragraph on Flowers’s bass contribution. Some statements were unsupported so I removed or altered them. Regarding the electric bass, neither source specifies the model he used, so I altered to "electric bass" as per both sources. The Hodgkinson source does say he was paid double, but it simply says that was the RESULT of him performing the two parts, NOT that he devised the two parts in order to get paid double. THAT claim was not supported in the source, and the IP editor was correct to remove it. What’s not clear is exactly how much he was paid and how the payment was broken down. The Simpson source says he received £17, but it’s unclear how that breaks down. You would have to know what the MU session rate was in 1972 to say for sure if it was a single or double session fee. It could even have been something in between, where an overdub of the same part would result in an increased fee but not literally doubled. In view of all this, it is best to keep claims to what is seen to be supported by BOTH these sources, with no ambiguity: He recorded the acoustic bass, then overlaid the electric bass, and he was paid a session fee of £17. All true, at least as per the cited sources. Dubmill (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. So maybe the flat fee for a session was £8 10s. Hard to know. You may want to have a quick look at Herbie Flowers. (I have always thought it sounded like a double bass. The Personnel section at Transformer gives both "bass guitar" and "double bass" for Flowers, but doesn't differentiate between tracks. I guess you could describe a double bass with pick-ups as an "electric bass", but the Wiki re-direct is to bass guitar.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to have a listen to the track to see what it sounds like. I can kind of hear it in my head but haven't actually heard it for a long time. Based upon what it sounds like in my head, it could easily be a hybrid of an acoustic bass and a fretless bass guitar. Both sources assert that there were two tracks, one acoustic, one electric. Of course, one could be more prominent in the mix than the other, with the secondary one adding some texture without necessarily being clearly audible as a separate thing. I'm intrigued now so will listen and report back.

Regarding the session fee, I do have a hunch that there was a basic session rate (I've seen the figure of £12 in connection with Flowers on this track) but under MU rules you got extra for doing an overdub. But extra, not double. Would that explain how £12 became £17? I used to be an MU member and seem to remember reading something about overdubs with regard to session fees. But maybe I'm wrong and the claim that you got literally double for two different instruments is true. Dubmill (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

In fact it was a Fender Jazz Bass. My young 1972 ears didn't realise that, when it came out. That's my excuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)