Nick Drake: why???

You realize your "sameness is bad" argument can be used to dismiss virtually every single act in the history of music?

proof: [x] records a song + it is good + all [x]'s songs are the same = all their songs are good!!

how do you do that then?

''but no one owes you an "argument" as to why nick drake is worth listening to - either you like him or you don't, and there's no point in assuming there's some objective quality that a nick drake fan can make you understand''

there's no point discussing so...just what is the fucking point of a discussion board then?

For instance i liked the fact that someone earlier in the thread was hearing drones in Nick's playing. Though I didn't hear it, it made me look at him from a different angle.

And of course: i think yr dislike of Fushitsusha is faked to prove a point so there's no need for me to answer it.

The comment about unsatisfactory arguments stands. Saying Drake is beautiful, haunting or simply a genius tells me nothing about him in relation to other musicians, yet that is how nearly all defenses of him proceed. To be fair, the accusations (on ILM, at least) are often relatively vague themselves. I tried to change that here, and if it has improved the quality of the responses, I haven't wasted my time.

Re: sameness - yes, from a certain viewpoint, all artistic endeavors are the same. Provided you specify the universe of discourse, however, it is quite possible to call some bodies of work more uniform than others. My parameters in this case are popular rock and folk music from the 1960s onward. Yours?

*Which is intentionally hyperbolic instead of descriptive.

Advanced musicology isn't required to see the near-identity of "Northern Sky" and "From the Morning", "Chime of a City Clock" and "Parasite", the recurrence of melodic passages, the mumbled cadences that crop up in nearly every song, etc. I could go back and make a long list of examples, but your words don't encourage me:

you won't be able to persuade me to the contrary about nick drake, fushitsusha or any other artist using objective criteria

If uniformity, repetition, and relative complexity aren't things you can be persuaded to see, about which you find argument pointless, then I doubt I could convince you your face was symmetrical if you didn't already believe it.

people tend to relate to music emotionally so "haunting, beautiful or simply a genius" are all things you're more likely to hear than "well, his fingerpicking style is derived from x, his songwriting is comparable to y," or an evaluation against his contemporaries.

"Beautiful" and "haunting" are useless as objective bases, and rarely show up in aesthetics. Taste is another matter, but--again--I have never been talking about tastes. You recognize the difference between liking and admiring something, don't you? Between "relating to" Drake and thinking critically about his work? Not wanting to do the latter is fine, but this thread shouldn't concern you if that's the case.

I'm not a good (or patient) writer,but I'll try and make one point. Art of all kinds can be analysed and discussed with many different criteria. An artist's techniques can be picked apart endlessly; this is fine and good. But if the ultimate purpose of (some if not most) art is to arouse emotion, evoke feelings, then saying you like something is beautiful is reason enough. What separates Drake from the other singer-songwriters of his day may indeed be a quality that we can pin down. However when discussing art it sometimes happens that this quality cannot be pinned down. If all you're after is cold hard logic, this answer is obviously unsatisfactory. If you understand that an emotional response, however difficult to describe, is sometimes not only an adequate response to art, but often the best one, then this kind of answer is adequate, in fact may be the only one necessary.

The very name of this bulletin board suggests where I'm coming from. Yes we all like talking about music... to the extent that disinterested parties would think us nuts. But if we love music, at the end of the day it should be understood that after all the technical discussion has died down, love is a mysterious emotion that needs no explanation. I hope you understand this.

I grinned manically when i read that. And coupled w/the fact that you didn't have the guts to tell us who you are. From a coward like you, I take the above as a compliment.

I'd agree w/ that but also in the heat of a discussion is sometimes very difficult to find the words to put across to someone who is of a different opinion, of why you love a singer/band. But it's nice to think that we can have a go at doing such a thing.

No question. However, this rules out nuance and aesthetic evaluation, on which all productive exchanges depend. I don't care that people like (=have a certain emotional response to) Nick Drake. I care that people respect him and raise him above others who managed (by my evaluation, which can be debated) much greater complexity and variation.

Consider that I have frequently felt the darkness and sadness in Drake's work. But in a short time, I saw it was the languid vocals inciting this feeling, and the fact that he almost never sang differently made me suspect that they were simply an involuntary feature, like the tolling of a bell. On the guitar, he had the droning technique mentioned earlier, but it was never expanded on, never used to different ends.

I hate to say it, but you and "your null fame" should examine your own standards here. Do you believe that, because music makes you feel a certain way, it must have a given aesthetic quality? Do you think it's impossible to be touched by something and recognize its limitations? Is anyone who rejects Nick Drake's genius merely a "wet blanket"?

You've probably stopped reading if you find me as "objectivist" as the other poster did. My fault, then, for supposing either of you were interested in objective discussion.

I phrased that as though I knew the answer, which I don't. I was hoping people who know a lot about '60s folk could agree or disagree.

That said, I find he resembles contemporary pop singers (it's most obvious on Bryter) more than recognized, and that people on whom he is said to be an influence (B&S, perhaps) have more vocal styles and melodies in their bag. Also, as I imply elsewhere in the thread, Tim Buckley was infinitely more versatile even if he never attempted the exact picking style or sparse arrangements of Drake.

The argument that the people he influenced have surpassed him isn't the strongest, I admit. Although a musician wouldn't get too far today just by copying Drake's formulas. If you've been following this thread, you'll see that most of my criticisms are based on the patterns I perceive in Drake, rather than similarities to those of his peers.

Oh, and read my recent post. It sounds like you're letting your emotional attachments get in the way of addressing the various points made.

A musician wouldn't get too far today just by copying J Martyn's formulas either. This is another measure of absolute zero.

It so happens I'm not particularly attached to Drake at all (although the idea of Five Leaves/MMM REALLY eloping sounds pretty great to me). Still, I'm infinitely more convinced by the various eloquent attempts to answer your question above than by your continued refusal to even accept them as possibly legitimate. Re-read the thread yourself. The subjectivity on your end burns disastrously bright, I'm afraid. As well it should. Unless taking art into the vacuum-realm of perfect mathematics is really your idea of a good time.

(in which case at least three cases of logical acrobatics up-thread demand your attention immediately and urgently)

(p.s. vacuums are very incredibly lonely though. If you let yourself you might pick up a thing or two of interest here among the problematic sentient folk. I have.) xo,

(in which case at least three cases of logical acrobatics up-thread demand your attention immediately and urgently)

If you expect me to attend to those 3+ cases, kindly point them out. (I'll be gone for a bit, but I'll resolve them all in due course.)

Hint 1: Your response to me alone (infering "emotional attachments" from the statement "By this logic Bach is overrated because of Mendelssohn, etc.") = ad hominem, a fallacy of opposition, and jumping to conclusions. It gets worse from there up.

Hint 2: Plato, for a start. "Aesthetic evaluation" my sweet aunt Edna.

Hint 3: The answer to the thread-question = "Because".

I suspected that (note "it sounds like") because of the post that followed. But failing to turn off italics was probably the reason you wrote it.

Hint 2: Plato, for a start. "Aesthetic evaluation" my sweet aunt Edna.

This doesn't imply a universal aesthetic, but any at all. The point of criticism is to discover what aesthetics inform our standards, what our basic assumptions are, and what information we may be missing. It helps us to see why evaluations of a given artist can differ. Unless you either love or hate the music you hear (i.e., have a universally warm or cold response to it), I don't see what's wrong with this pursuit.

Hint 3: The answer to the thread-question = "Because".

Stop me if I've misunderstood this one, but I clarified the "why" several posts up, in case it was unclear (look for it in boldface). Many answers--fingering style, voice, early death, sense of wasted promise--have been valid, although they don't change my own estimation of Drake for reasons I have tried (maybe unsuccessfully) to explain.

I think in the end it all boils down to if you like or don't like an artist. The sameness argument concerning Nick Drake is completely relative and subjective.

I have to disagree. First, it's possible to like something and hold it in no great esteem (I gather several people have this relationship to the Strokes). One can also be impressed--I dare say bowled over-- by music one doesn't care to hear that often, if ever (my feelings toward Loveless, many others' toward "noise"-based music). The conflation of admiration and taste for something is common, but fallacious as a principle.

Second, as I said, once the parameters have been established, repetition is one of the few features that can be objectively agreed on. I'm confused by people's disagreement here: if a musical piece consists of a rhythmically-sounded tuning fork, is its uniformity "subjective"? My contention about Drake will be flat-out wrong if, in the songs and passages I find similar, Drake's playing varies in a good number of ways that I've failed to notice.

Drake's three studio albums are totally different. Pink Moon is bleak as bleak can be, Five Leaves Left is wistfully beautiful, Bryter Later a little overproduced and almost poppy. If you don't hear any differences in the songs, amal25 it just means that you didn't get into them, you were put off before. I think to hear the nuances in Drake's music you have to like it.

See above. This need never be true in music or any other art form. It's not encouraging that those who like, and have presumably lent attention to Drake's work, haven't pointed out the differences between the songs I compared earlier (aside from the production).

The limitations of the voice can not be used as an argument I think. Why should someone with a more versatile voice like Jeff Buckley be a more accomplished artist? All right Buckley would probably have been a better opera singer with all his mannerisms but that is totally irrelevant. Do you also use Ian Curtis and Lou Reed's limited voices as arguments against JD and VU?

I don't think Reed's vocal styles--or Curtis', from the little I know- -are so limited, at least compared to those of Drake. And I'm basing the claim of versatility on what I've heard these artists do, not on what they seem capable of.

I don't recall saying this, but my search for subtle differences within Drake's songs has turned up very little. Yes, it may be that I need to look harder.

but nuance is exactly what I find in his songs: "Parasite", "Northern Sky", "Chime Of A City Clock" may be very similar musically and even thematically but perhaps the value in them is in contemplating the small differences that there are (and the differences in mood in these songs strike me as not so small - now it may be that you dismiss 'mood' as an appropriate subject for critical consideration, but I don't agree).

The lyrical mood does differ (I assume you weren't implying differences in production). McDonald's article, which I read on one poster's recommendation, has made me respect Drake more as a lyricist, but hasn't dispelled the feeling that he wanted for musical ideas.

This misses the point again, amal25. What is being called into question is your continued insistence that repetition (or "uniform tone, uniform rhythm and vocal dynamics" for that matter) is "objectively" a fault.

My contention about Drake will be flat-out wrong if, in the songs and passages I find similar, Drake's playing varies in a good number of ways that I've failed to notice.

No. Your contention was flat-out wrong the second someone said they liked repetition.

(In the last three days, have concluded N Drake is the most terrific genius of all time ever, just to spite objectivity)

At no point have I "insisted" that it should be seen as a fault. I have presented this standard as my own and supposed that it will be shared to some degree by some of the people reading. And so it seems to be; many responses have offered evidence contrary to my claims of sameness or simply dismissed them, but two at most have attacked the values inherent in them. Alex was doing the former (as was Tom, despite his initial wavering), and so I fail to see how my response misses the point.

No. Your contention was flat-out wrong the second someone said they liked repetition.

Subjective approval doesn't counter subjective opposition. You have to ignore or shine on a lot of what I've written, including responses to your posts, to say that I have been forcing my standards on people who don't share them. Only the "sameness is damning" comment, which should have been introduced by "for me" (but which was appropriate in context), suggests this.

i'm honestly very fond of r. stevie moore's version of "river man"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKkI9IcSms

I hadn't listened to Andy Bey's version of River Man in ages and it kind of snuck up on me this morning. Easily the best Drake cover I've heard.

I am a megafan of the guy who played guitar on that track btw.

http://www.paulmeyers.info/no_flash.php

Yup. Refraining from going full-on street team for now.

I brought up the Andy Bey version of "River Man" the other day when Paul Meyers posted a picture of him and Andy on social media. I listened to it and noticed that the arrangement was exactly the same as the original. Paul told me yes, he learned the guitar part off the original record and a really talented guy named Andy Stein transcribed the strings, overdubbing the violin and viola and giving the other parts to a cellist and bassist. Turned out to be Andy Stein of Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen (#OneThread), who has had a really interesting career over the years. So now I am kind of obsessed by how good it is because I think this kind of thing is amazing but hard to pull off, covering the original exactly as it was done but singing it convincingly enough that it is still its own thing and not just a copy.

Thanks for sharing.

"I think this kind of thing is amazing but hard to pull off, covering the original exactly as it was done but singing it convincingly enough that it is still its own thing and not just a copy."

- exactly. Not all cover versions have to be radically different in order to be credible.

I enjoyed that cover.

I'm intrigued by that Andy bey cover mentioned. I have one of his early 70s lps Experience and judgment so it initially sounds as unlikely as Millie's Drake cover . But maybe makes more sense since it comes from the late 90s. Assume Millie got given the song because she was on Island. Bey had 25+ years to come across the song, or was it who he was working with in the late 90s.

Just looked at the dates. Shades of Bey came out in 1998. The Pink Moon Volkswagen commercial was 1999. So while people were still talking about and listening to Nick Drake at the time, he was a still a bit underground.

Yes, and it's still a bit of an outlier in his work.

Millie must've been given Mayfair as a demo, I don't think Drake's recording was released until the 90s(?).

Various things on the interweb say the song was brought to his attention by "the producer Herb Jordan." I found this interesting article which confirms this, although it seems to ignore the existence of some prior Bey albums which is weird.

To compare: I usually like Natacha Atlas, but her cover of "RIver Man" is neither here nor there for me, at least upon first listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlMNMmojhI

But maybe it's growing on me the second time.

Heh, you can buy a t-shirt or a hoodie with a picture of Andy Bey and Herb Jordan on it.

Seems to be more here, but I can't listen right now: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/24/773110485/andy-bey-at-80-a-love-letter-to-a-jazz-legend

Heh, you can buy a t-shirt or a hoodie with a picture of Andy Bey and Herb Jordan on it.

Bey's version of Sting's Fragile is a favourite of mine too. Ron Carter on bass, I think.