|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Lost Chicken in High Weeds Date: 25 Oct 20 - 05:04 PM BTW, I'll leave one example: "Black Eyed Dog". The first time I heard it struck me indescribably. To me, what makes guitar (or any instrument) work most "impressive" is not technical ability/difficulty/gymnastics/etc., but what he does here is use the instrument as an implement of *art*, to create a mood, "paint a picture" along with the poetics. It's a haunting piece. I have no idea what he's singing about here, yet I know exactly as well. Another I recall being immediately drawn to was "'Cello Song". It's just a beauty of a piece, and I love these poetics as well: "You would seem so frail In the cold of the night When the armies of emotion Go out to fight But while the earth sinks to its grave You sail to the sky On the crest of a wave" Everyone is internally unique, and personally struck by differing things, but I don't think one can accurately generally declare something "not really that good, this person is better", "undeserved attention" or such. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many folks that a given thing "we all know about" means so much to. Obviously Nick strikes chords with a good many. As was said by someone above, I've never personally been able to "get into" Richard Thompson, despite having read articles in guitar and other types of magazines back in my youthful initial bursts of learning and exploration into the wide open world of music/music history/etc., telling me how great he is. It just never *resonated*, but it's obvious that there are many people who consider him among the tops, probably some at the very top, even. It's understandable, everyone is internally unique. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Lost Chicken in High Weeds Date: 25 Oct 20 - 04:23 PM Indeed, some of the stances in here are rather strange to me. It's one thing for a given artist to simply not be someone's "cup of tea", but, well, I won't address any specifics from above. Anyway, I very much love Nick Drake. I am not aware of whatever "hype" there might be "out there", I haven't owned a TV since 1993, very rarely "listen to the radio", etc., and generally only read about specific things I'm searching for on the Internet. I discovered him in 1994 after reading an interview with Rich Robinson of The Black Crowes. I'd already been playing guitar in open G thanks to Keith Richards being one of my teenage musical heroes, and in the interview Rich said that most people assumed that's where he got open tunings from, but that it was actually Nick who prompted him. So, I had to investigate and it happened that 'Way to Blue: An Introduction' had just been released. I found some of the pieces quite stunning and still enjoy listening from time to time. Something hit me today to dig him out again so I've been at it for a couple of hours and thought to see what discussions might have gone on here. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,colin Holt Date: 05 Oct 18 - 09:27 AM Scanning this thread ... so much dislike amongst so many of you of songwriters.....Why is that ???? |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,colin Holt Date: 05 Oct 18 - 09:21 AM I agree Big Al.... Horrifying I stumbled across Drake at Art College in 1975, and have loved his stuff ever since. In my view the first 2 albums are timeless. Not just down to Drakes writing and delivery, but the sensitivity of the production alongside the beautiful string arrangements, especially as Al says Riverman. Harry Robinson created a wonderful landscape which Drake plays over. Pink Moon is naked and at times painful. Drake was obviously a complicated guy....but I agree with Al again.... Lifes work on three discs The one point I disagree with Big Al on is the guitarbeing deceptively simple.... (Left hand sometimes ... but never the right hand) |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Big Al Whittle Date: 03 Oct 18 - 04:28 PM My God! What a horrifying thread! I love Nick Drake's work. I didn't always. I was travelling along in my car abut five or six years back. Riverman came on the radio - a cover version by a German jazz orchestra. About a month later, I was doing a gig at an open air market. There was a bookstall , the only book of any possible interest was Trevor Dann's biography. Just skimmimg through, I could see Nick must have been in the same room as me at the same gigs, back in 1960's. I never knew him, and had I heard his music - I wouldn't have got it, back then. But in about three weeks from reading the book I was a completist. The three albums seem to me a wonderful life's work. Yes I think he was influenced by the poet's he came across in his studies. I hear Houseman somewhere between these lines and the guitar is deceptively simple, but utter perfection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCRks_98790 |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: FreddyHeadey Date: 03 Oct 18 - 03:12 PM 1997 BBC radio : Kaleidoscope - Nick Drake - Unsung - John Wilson explores the troubled life and the controversial death of singer-songwriter Nick Drake with the help of those closest to him, including his sister Gabrielle, producer Joe Boyd and his friend Robert Kirby. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039g8pk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ bbc iPlayer Radio app http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3yvdp3zQJWLtl204z9nxgRt/download-the-iplayer-radio-app (then click the '+' on the programme's web page then on the app click Menu > My Radio > Listen Later) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Will Fly Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:52 AM It's odd, isn't it... (slight thread creep here)... I was at a music gathering the other evening and a local singer-songwriter sang several of his own songs. I'm not a fan of such stuff, but they weren't at all bad - intelligent, tuneful, heartfelt, etc. However, he sang them all in an accent that was more American than any American I've ever heard, almost supra- James Taylor. By the end of his set, I'd wearied of the accent which was putting me completely off listening. His natural speaking voice was a pleasant Scottish accent, and I just wished he'd sung his own compositions in his own voice. I'm sure they would have had more impact. Somehow, the accent he'd adopted made his songs sound slightly dishonest - as though they weren't his. If he was singing American blues, I could have understood the accent, but not for his own material. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:34 AM That's daft! The Makem's are their background! Put another way, wouldn't seem rather strange if a folk singer from the Devon, who admired Dick Gaughan, sang all his west country songs with a Scottish accent? |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: MikeL2 Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:36 AM hi " There's influenced and INFLUENCED "....... I agree. It's a matter of degree. And there's a difference between influenced and COPYING. Playing devil's advocate; do you not feel that maybe singers like the Makems have been heavily influenced by their backgrounds??? Would this not be called copying ?? Cheers Mike |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:59 PM Of course, there's being influenced and being INFLUENCED! Unfortunately, I've grown up with two or three generations of British rock/pop singers being influenced by American singers and it makes me cringe! Every time I hear Robbie Williams twisting his vocal cords in an attempt replicate Bobby Darin or whoever, I just want to laugh out loud. Likewise, the majority of British blues singers are still trying to sound like B.B., Muddy, John Lee etc. The bottom line, as far as Nick is concerned, is that I don't believe him. I'm not hearing the real Nick Drake but a singer that he has invented. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: glueman Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:26 PM Good Lord, I've found myself agreeing with every word R. Bridge has written. I need a stiff drink. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: MikeL2 Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:06 PM hi For goodness sake of course Nick had intonations of other musicians in his performances !! What musician and particularly vocalists don't ??? Every honest musician will tell you that he/she has been influenced by people that they admired musically. Great/popular musicians are copied in their thousands by beginners wanting to learn how to play/perform. One of the ways we all learn is by listening to music and whether conciously or sub-conciously some of the music rubs off on the learner. To criticise Nick for being influenced by his predecessors is ludicrous; he was only doing what most musicians have been doing for hundreds of years. Even the old Traditional musicians were influenced by their previous generations and that is how certain styles of music were born. I am not sure what was meant by " Nick has a manufactured voice " - certainly it is a voice of his time and no doubt future musicians will be influence by Nick. By the way I am not a great admirer of Nick. Cheers Mike |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,GUEST, guest Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:40 AM I may have guessed you'd say that. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:05 PM That's not playing the game! |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Guest, Tunesmith Date: 28 Jan 10 - 03:13 PM Actually, I just listened back again to Pink Moon and really like it now. Apologies for my earlier piffle. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:31 AM And, of course, had he recorded Mystery Train in 56, he would have sounded, no doubt, like Elvis! |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Will Fly Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:16 AM ........ or 'Mystery Train'......... |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Smedley Date: 28 Jan 10 - 11:06 AM If he'd first recorded in the mid-50s, I'd have loved to hear his version of 'How Much Is That Doggie In The Window'........ |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:55 AM Had Nick never heard Bert Jansch, John Martyn, Donovan etc, he would have sounded like a totally different singer! Put another way, had Nick been born ten years earlier, and first recorded in the mid-fifties, again, he would have sounded totally different than the Nick we know. Why? Because he contrived a "voice" based on his musical influences - which, obviously, includes the way he pronounces words. And, to my ears, the voice he contrived sounds self-conscious and false. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 28 Jan 10 - 10:00 AM er, why is that remotely daft? I'm not having anything both ways. Similar. Not 'absolutely identical'. Not 'completely and utterly indistinguishable' . Obviously NIck was male and his sister and mother are/were female. So there are gonna be some rather obvious differences. But in terms of accent, cadence, timbre, the voices of Nick Drake's sister and mother are similar to the voice of Nick Drake. And the voice of Nick Drake does not change much over the course of his albums. Funnily enough, he sings on Pink Moon not dissimilarly to how he sings on his teenage home recordings. As I mentioned above, he does do a funny enunciation thing on his "Ks" (both Donovan and Mark E Smith (!) do something similar) All singing is affected or stylized in some way, however tiny. But I'd say Nick Drake has one of the least affected voices, in terms of accent, in terms of delivery, of any singers ever. There are hundreds of more affected voices: think of any number of Drake's blues-singing British peers. You can hear his speaking voice on the 'Family Tree' album. It's like his singing voice: the same gentle, rather breathy timbre, only deeper. (Most people, I find, tend to sing in a slightly higher register than they speak. I certainly do. Aside from the obvious - you don't consciously pitch your speech - it's probably to do with the fact that you tend to sing louder than you speak) |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 28 Jan 10 - 07:52 AM You can't have it both ways! If you say that Nick's sister and mother sound like Nick on the All My Trials recording, and you say that Nick sounds, on that recording, similar to how he sounds on Pink Moon, then, in you are saying that Nick's sister and mother sound similar on All My Trials to how Nick sounds on Pink Moon which just about the daftest thing I've heard in ages! |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 28 Jan 10 - 04:57 AM "I bet the family sound simlilar on "All My Trials", but I bet Nick doesn't sound anything like he sounds on Pink Moon, for example" He does. "Also, as mentioned above, the recording of Nick Drake's mum singing Poor Mum (maybe a precursor of Nick Drake's Poor Boy?)" I think "poor mum" might have been written as a response to "poor boy". or at least, as a sort of little joke on all the 'poor boy'/'ramblin man' type blues songs Nick would have been playing round the house as a teenager. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Spleen Cringe Date: 27 Jan 10 - 04:00 PM Of course, if we're talking about songwriters from this era, we have to have a shout going out for Meic Stevens and his masterful "Outlander"... |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:46 PM I bet the family sound simlilar on "All My Trials", but I bet Nick doesn't sound anything like he sounds on Pink Moon, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Haggis Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:25 PM " nygelgoode: Let's put it this way, if Nick's father, mother or sister decided to sing, they - I assure you - would sound so very, very different - in nearly everyway you can think of - than Nick. Now why should that be? Nick invented a "voice" which, to be, sounds artificial and very contrived. But if that's your cup of tea, fair enough." There's a recording of Nick Drake singing All My Trials with his sister and their voices are very similar. Also, as mentioned above, the recording of Nick Drake's mum singing Poor Mum (maybe a precursor of Nick Drake's Poor Boy?) shows that he was hugely influenced by her singing. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Phil Edwards Date: 27 Jan 10 - 03:18 PM Nick invented a "voice" which, to be, sounds artificial and very contrived. You've said this a few times, but you haven't said much about how or in what way! I'll grant you that his singing voice was mannered - there's a plonking faux-naif plainness and a hushed, breathily intimate delivery, both of which you can hear in songs as far apart as "Mayfair" and "Which will". But saying someone invented a voice usually implies something a bit more extreme, like Donovan or Marc Bolan or the legion of British singers with an acquired American accent. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Stu Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:53 PM Have you ever heard recordings of his mother singing? She was a musician and a great influence on the young Drake, and when you hear his work you can hear distinct echos of hers. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:10 PM nygelgoode: Let's put it this way, if Nick's father, mother or sister decided to sing, they - I assure you - would sound so very, very different - in nearly everyway you can think of - than Nick. Now why should that be? Nick invented a "voice" which, to be, sounds artificial and very contrived. But if that's your cup of tea, fair enough. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: nygelgoose Date: 27 Jan 10 - 10:07 AM Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:47 AM "I've just come from Youtube were the first thing up of Nick's was Pink Moon. If anyone doesn't think that he's singing that a song in a manufactured voice that doesn't bear any resemblance to his environment/background then I'm flabbergasted!" you'll have to remain flabbergasted then methinks .... |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: nygelgoose Date: 27 Jan 10 - 09:56 AM Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Paco O'Barma - PM Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:58 PM Limp. er , have you seen a doctor ? |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Phil Edwards Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:44 AM I bristle at the suggestion that, given a couple more years, he could have produced something of the calibre of Digence, Tilston, McTell or Martyn. I wouldn't swap the 30 short minutes of Pink Moon for the entire combined discographies of them Me neither, as it happens. I still listen to Nick Drake sometimes, and I don't even own anything by any of those four people, so I wasn't making a statement about the calibre of the albums. Just saying that if things had gone well for him, Nick Drake would have ended up as one of those performers - playing the same kind of venues, getting played on the same kind of radio programme, raved about by the same kind of people. He wanted to be much, much more - and he was prepared to do much, much less. (Of course, if things had gone well for Nick Drake, Pink Moon would probably never have been recorded.) |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:23 AM "I think it's significant that the style of "contemporary folk" which Nick Drake typifies more or less disappeared after a few years. It was the singer-songwriters such as those Will mentions, who were producing a rather different type of song, who have proved long-lasting" Howard - you're right in terms of commercial success. But I wouldn't agree in terms of influence and credibility. There's a whole swathe of contemporary folk-based songwriters who clearly owe a big debt to that generation: singers and musicians such as Alasdair Roberts, Michael Rossitter, Mary Hampton, Spoono, Benjamin Wetherill, Hollowbody, Jason Steel… I could go on all day. It's not Paul Simon, Cat Stevens and James Taylor they're influenced by. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 27 Jan 10 - 07:15 AM Discussion of 'hype', 'media hype', whether someone is 'overrated' or not is always going to be to an extent a fool's errand, as we all know that hype is simply what the media does. Another reason that it's a blind alley because we all have our heroes and do so love to put them in some kind of classifiable order. But that, unlike the banal brute fact of media hype, does at least give all us music geeks a chance to wax lyrical about our faves and not-so-faves. Personally, I don't like Richard Thompson, Paul Simon or Paco de Lucia at all, and only like the odd song here or there by Ralph McTell and Steve Tilston (the former more than the latter). John Martyn I always found quite irritating, apart from his early stuff – probably because it sounds a bit like Nick Drake (and/or Bert Jansch). Hey, we all have different ears and different aesthetics. So I bristle at the suggestion that, given a couple more years, he could have produced something of the calibre of Digence, Tilston, McTell or Martyn. I wouldn't swap the 30 short minutes of Pink Moon for the entire combined discographies of them. For me, Drake was a long way from being just one among many talented fingerpickers, (albeit only on two albums: Pink Moon and the demos comp Family Tree). |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Phil Edwards Date: 27 Jan 10 - 05:38 AM Will - that was a really useful comment, which has hopefully moved the debate on from the slightly defensive "ah, so you're saying he couldn't play?" rut it was getting into earlier. And I think you've put your finger on why Nick Drake became a cult figure to start with, and why he's now being hyped to the skies. As you said, though unrecognised at the time [he] fitted retrospectively into the contemporary scene which he inhabited From the Humphries biog, he didn't get anywhere commercially (or critically) essentially because he didn't put the work in - he made a couple of beautiful records and expected the world to beat a path to his door. And that, after his death, made him an icon for everyone who thought they could be the next Dylan/Django/Keats/... if only people would listen, but had no idea how to go about making them listen (and actually, deep down, no intention of trying). Which is to say, just about everyone at a certain age. As you say, he wasn't another Django (or Dylan, or Keats). A couple of years' gigging and a bit of work on the stage-fright, and he could have been up there with Richard Digance* or Steve Tilston, easily; John Martyn, maybe; Ralph McTell at a pinch. But because the success he actually achieved was so minor, there's no realistic limit on the success he might have achieved. If you're playing support slots at folk clubs then you can aim at headlining folk clubs; if you're basically not gigging at all, except when somebody pulls some strings for you, you can aim at anything and everything, and blame fate or bad luck when none of it comes off. It's like playing two games of football and going down in history as a Pele that never was, not a reliable midfield clogger that never was. The other half of the story - why the hype now - is, I think, about the but-not factor. We see this a lot any time anyone manages to get traditional song or dance onto the TV - it's morris dancing but not as you know it! he's a folk singer but not a dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist! it's folk music but without the leather elbow patches! And so on, and on. This isn't ultimately about perceptions of folk, so much as about the way the cultural hype industry works: you have to have a USP, there has to be a reason for focusing on this performer and not all the others. Of course, a healthy folk scene (or any other scene) is precisely about all the others. So Nick Drake isn't "a neglected singer-songwriter"**, he's "a singer-songwriter but not like all those other singer-songwriters", or "a folk singer but not the kind that sing about milkmaids and blacksmiths" (cheers, Danny). Has anyone read the Trevor Dann biog, incidentally? I gather the idea is that he was crazy all along (Drake, not Dann). I read somewhere that he was on a major tranquilliser, usually prescribed for psychosis - the 'three drugs' the family doctor prescribed him were the Tryptizol, the major tranq and an anti-Parkinson drug (major tranqs have Parkinsonism as a side-effect). But this may just be early-70s prescribing. God knows how all of that would have played with the dope. *This could have been a solution to the stagefright problem. Digance and Drake! One talks, one retunes! **We should all be so neglected. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Howard Jones Date: 27 Jan 10 - 05:32 AM This thread has prompted me to listen to Nick Drake again, but I'm afraid I still don't get it. I think it's significant that the style of "contemporary folk" which Nick Drake typifies more or less disappeared after a few years. It was the singer-songwriters such as those Will mentions, who were producing a rather different type of song, who have proved long-lasting. I'm still of the opinion that the reason he was largely unrecognised at the time was that he was just one of many in the genre, and apparently one with poor performing skills despite his abilities as a guitarist. As I recall, most folk clubs had at least a couple of singer-songwriters performing this kind of song and in a similar style. Of course, most of them were turning out unmitigated crap, but by no means all of them. However most of them were never recorded, never performed outside their local area, and never had the opportunity to be retrospectively discovered. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: MikeL2 Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:41 PM Hi Will I agree with you entirely. This thread even by Mudcat standards has been very wide of the original thread subject. I agree that good as Nick was his ability especially on guitar has been overrated. My guitar tastes are from a slightly different genre than yours and I agree with your choices to deserve the word genius but I would choose as mine Wes Montgomery, Barney Kessel George Benson and Paco de Lucia. Cheers Mike |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Will Fly Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:25 PM Well, this thread has taken some interesting turns - from Nick Drake's sex life, to whether Eva Cassidy has any merit or not. Frankly, I don't give a toss about any of that. Just to return to the original proposition, my own view would be that Nick Drake was an interesting singer, songwriter and guitarist who - though unrecognised at the time - fitted retrospectively into the contemporary scene which he inhabited. As a guitarist, my opinion of his guitar playing is that it was good - but not distinguished. Guitar genius - on the same plane as, say, Django Reinhardt, Eddie Lang, Rev. Gary Davis, etc. - he was not. His songs are introspective and pleasant, but don't give me insights into the human condition in the way that songs by - say - Richard Thompson, Randy Newman, Paul Simon, John Prine, Jim Webb, and many others - have done. This was the reason for my original post: the contemporary media culture's opinion of his oeuvre - in my view - has been hyped beyond measure. His work stands as it is - it doesn't require exaggeration. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Zen Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:16 PM No doubt those who brought it up or discuss it would reply to the question, "Have you ever masturbated?" by saying, "Uh, yes. I tried it once and didn't like it." I rather think it would be the opposite Guest,999! Yes, I agree, let the thread be about his music. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:13 PM Eva Cassidy is definitely not over-rated! |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM Discussions seem to take a seriously downward turn when a person's sex life enters the picture. No doubt those who brought it up or discuss it would reply to the question, "Have you ever masturbated?" by saying, "Uh, yes. I tried it once and didn't like it." It's his music that is the topic of the thread. Not his sex life. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Stu Date: 26 Jan 10 - 01:17 PM I like Nick Drake, and discovered him by accident over a decade or so ago after hearing "Chime of a City Clock" on a late night radio show, and was hooked. He's become much more appreciated since then, as everyone I asked had never heard of him at that time. Eva Cassidy is, IMHO, utterly overrated. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 26 Jan 10 - 09:40 AM let's just say, then, it appears Nick Drake never got to know anyone, female or male. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:25 PM Romance? That was the 60s. Sex was a good way of getting to know someone. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:16 AM Vocally, Nic Jones was clearly coming out of Martin Carthy but, surely, Bert must have been his primary guitar influence! |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Zen Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:57 AM Interestingly, Nick sounds like John Martyn at times - or vice versa? Which is a bit strange as John is a Glaswegian The two were neighbours and friends in their early days which mighthave been an influence on both of them. Personally, I think Pink Moon is a fine album (I prefer it to the two earlier ones with strings accompaniment). |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Phil Edwards Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:41 AM Murray - depends what you mean by genius, really. But I think it sounds great; it lodged in my mind the first time I heard it; and (although I'm not a guitarist) it sounds much harder than anything I can ever imagine myself playing. That'll do for me. Richard - aargh, Nic Jones's timing! I spent a quarter of an hour working out what time Lord Bateman was in, and sussed it eventually. Then I spent rather longer trying to work out what time the Bonny Bunch of Roses was in, and eventually concluded that it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:27 AM not that it matters, but the book suggests, very clearly and convincingly, based on testimonies from plenty of his peers he never had any romances at all. The more you read about him, the less likely it seems that he ever ever had any sex with anyone. Richard - have you heard the Family Tree album? It might surprise you. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:12 AM It's highly improbable - he probably got lots - right looks, right place, right time, "sensitive", and a more than accomplished guitarist. I don't like his stuff, and find it slushy (hey, that never hurt with persons of gender) but there can be no doubt that he was very very good as a guitarist. And while the Nic Jones "thump" can be great when he is in the same time signature vocally and on the guitar, when he crosses the rhythms it becomes infuriating. |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,matt milton Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:08 AM I can't say I often feel the impulse to point to anything and exclaim the word genius. Both Nick Drake and Nic Jones got to be very good guitarists by playing the guitar a hell of a lot. While Drake used a lot more tunings, neither of them routinely played in standard EADGBE tuning. I think it's fairly pointless to compare Nick Drake with Nic Jones. For me, Nic Jones belongs stylistically in that Martin Carthy tradition of guitar playing, which you can hear in Martin Simpson and new kid on the block Sam Carter. Drake for me is clearly in the Jansch, Graham mould. As far as getting laid goes, the Humphries biography makes it clear that Nick Drake just wasn't interested. He had plenty of opportunities, he just was a bit of an aesthete. I think he had more than a few hangups, but probably no more than plenty of over-sensitive 20something guys |
|
Subject: RE: Nick Drake - hype and reality From: GUEST,Ed Date: 25 Jan 10 - 08:05 AM Nick Drake's problem was that he never, ever, got laid. And you know that???? Arsehole |
| Share Thread: |
