Lightnin Rod - Sport [CLIP]

[Phokus]

Break name: Sport

 

Artist: Lightnin Rod

Track name: Sport

Original release: LP, Lightnin Rod - Hustlers Convention

Label: United Artists

Cat number:

Year: 1973

Drummer: George "Funky" Brown (Kool & The Gang provided the music for a couple of the cuts on this album, others tracks featured Bernard Purdie, amongst others)

 

Also available on:

 

Example: Ink & Dylan - Need You Now; Roni Size & Die - 11.55

 

Clip: http://www.rolldabeats.com/audio/breaks/lightnin_rod-sport.mp3

[Phokus]

Clip added

[Ornette]

Skin Divers - 21 Rivers (Intense Remix) uses this, I think

http://www.rolldabeats.com/release/all_good_vinyl/agv013

 

Would anyone like to confirm about the break beat versions of this tune, I understand there's some with the clean break, and others with not? Clip is also broken

[Ornette]

As this is a duplicate post, just thought I'd say Lionel Richie 'My Destiny' uses this break

 

[Ornette]

The Invisible Man - The Bell Tune

[Ornette]

Elementz Of Noize - Chillin' On The Funk

[Ornette]

Elementz Of Noize - Chillin' On The Funk

[Ornette]

K-Rox & DJ Monita - Abandoned

http://www.rolldabeats.com/release/11128/skeleton_recordings/skel005

 

uses this briefly, later on in the tune

[Mikhail Khaliulin]

http://www.whosample...rsion)/sampled/

[Mikhail Khaliulin]

http://www.whosample.../Sport/sampled/

[mikeeee-mk2]

whosampled... riddled with adverts and inaccuracies

[mikeeee-mk2]

whosampled... riddled with adverts and inaccuracies

[Chinny Reckon]

Not felt compelled to register with this site until now, but as a regular Who Sampled contributor I feel I have to defend the site. Yes, the adverts are a pain- but if it keeps the website online and in business, so be it. Once you are logged in and become a regular contributor, it becomes ad free anyway. Yes, there are many inaccuracies, but this is being worked on and the inaccuracies are far outweighed by credible content. The number of inaccuracies is in some ways not surprising due to the large number of contributors but at least it is easy to sort the wheat from the chaff as you can listen to everything easily. There are actually probably fewer errors than you think, I have lost count of the number of people who register to the site, leave one erroneous comment about a supposed error and then disappear never to be seen again.

 

As for the sample section of this site, you would think it would be a lot easier to maintain quality control given the forum here seems to average fewer than double figures in postings per day, but I have noticed a number of obvious errors on here recently. Maybe I should share the knowledge and point them out.... that is if you promise not to ban me for shattering your illusions of superiority.

[Chinny Reckon]

Not felt compelled to register with this site until now, but as a regular Who Sampled contributor I feel I have to defend the site. Yes, the adverts are a pain- but if it keeps the website online and in business, so be it. Once you are logged in and become a regular contributor, it becomes ad free anyway. Yes, there are many inaccuracies, but this is being worked on and the inaccuracies are far outweighed by credible content. The number of inaccuracies is in some ways not surprising due to the large number of contributors but at least it is easy to sort the wheat from the chaff as you can listen to everything easily. There are actually probably fewer errors than you think, I have lost count of the number of people who register to the site, leave one erroneous comment about a supposed error and then disappear never to be seen again.

 

As for the sample section of this site, you would think it would be a lot easier to maintain quality control given the forum here seems to average fewer than double figures in postings per day, but I have noticed a number of obvious errors on here recently. Maybe I should share the knowledge and point them out.... that is if you promise not to ban me for shattering your illusions of superiority.

[Weltall]

The amount of inaccuracies is quite worrying and it's not due to the large number of contributors. It's because moderators aren't doing their work as accurately and carefully as they should.

 

As an ex moderator on that site I know what I'm talking about. In my moderation time I felt it was my duty to check every specification of the submission and compare all details with databases to make sure they're correct. For that matter Discogs, Wikipedia and Google were constantly open tabs whenever I worked on submissions. Yes it's tedious work and it can stretch the processing time per submission to painstaking lengths, but I thought it was worth it. The fact that many moderators don't think the same is very sobering.

[Chinny Reckon]

Well you are correct Weltall, and you don't need to be a moderator to realise that many moderators are nowhere near as diligent as they should be, but mikeee mk2 in his post seems to think the errors render the site useless, which is far from the truth. There are also a number of errors on this site (that have also migrated to Discogs) which I have not felt compelled to point out until now, but given that I have now registered (initially to respond to the aforementioned post) I feel as though I might as well contribute a bit. After all , we're all aiming for the same thing, right? It's also worth noting that of the errors I have spotted on this site, the correct information can very often be found on....... Who Sampled.

[Chinny Reckon]

Sorry, double post.