Nick Drake: why???

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (194 of them)
The statement about Fushitsusha proves no point whatsoever. Eliminate "too loud" and the cat analogy*, and it's a perfectly valid accusation.

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

The comment about unsatisfactory arguments stands.

says you, pal. your statements are completely subjective; the statements of nick drake fans are completely subjective. it's a waste of time; "mediocrity" is in the eye of the beholder, and if we're going to collapse musicality to ratable, comparable scales we might as well just say steve vai's the best guitarist ever and have done with it.

your null fame, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

maybe my issue is that i really don't care about how his skill or style relates to other musicians; speaking from a musicological point of view, sure, it's possible. it's also rather dull

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.

, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

sorry, but this is getting too similar to arguing with an objectivist or libertarian for my tastes. see you around.

your null fame, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Just stepping in to mention that the idea of Five Leaves Left and Metal Machine Music eloping fills me with horror. I mean, what would the children be like? *shudder*

Christine "Green Leafy" Indigo, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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.

Sean, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

''Julio, you are possibly the biggest fucking asshole I have ever read. Do you ever have anything nice to say about anything? Honestly, YOU ARE A FUCKING JERK OFF.''

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.

Julio Desouza, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

''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'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.

Julio Desouza, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

great question! and a difficult one to answer. i like nick drak a lot, and i'm a big fan of bryter layter (which i understand isn't regarded as his best? my favourite anyway). what did he bring to the mix others hadn't? this i cannot answer, i don't really know, my interest in drake is perhaps tokenistic (i'm only peripherally aware of richard thompson, john martyn etc) in the way that my interest in mingus is.

drake isn't really the kind of music i would *normally* like, but i was captivated by Bryter Layter, as much by what was going on around drake as drakes input himself (all those 'jazzy' bits and strings or whatever i really like). Bryter Layter has always reminded me of the Richard D James album in its 'fee', early morning oxfordshire summer type business

i'd be interested to know who the 'others' that had already brought drake stuff to the mix are. then i could compare in some way, and perhaps be able to offer a better response to the thread.

gareth, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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.

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.

, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

i'd be interested to know who the 'others' that had already brought drake stuff to the mix are. then i could compare in some way, and perhaps be able to offer a better response to the thread.

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.

, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I hate to say it, but you and "your null fame" should examine your own standards here.

bzzt; i see no reason to "examine my standards" when i'm quite happy with the things i listen to and i have absolutely no need to justify it to you or anyone else. sorry about that.

i'm beginning to find your "i-am-a-robot, what-is-this-earth-thing-you-call-music" routine irritating; as i said at the outset, since you obviously don't have any concept of liking something based on emotion as opposed to some weird set of abstract, 'objective' qualities (impossible, sorry, everything is subjective to some degree), it's pointless trying to persuade you otherwise. music isn't a competition, as far as i'm concerned, and comparing tim buckley and nick drake is like comparing feathers and steak.

good day, sir.

your null fame, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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.

By this logic Bach is overrated because of Mendelssohn, etc.

The Actual Mr. Jones, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

grrr.

The Actual Mr. Jones, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

By this logic Bach is overrated because of Mendelssohn, etc.

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.

, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

heee. emotional attachments. those bloody nuisances.

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,

The Actual Mr. Jones, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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)

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.)

, Saturday, 13 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hmm.

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".

The Actual Mr. Jones, Sunday, 14 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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.

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.

, Sunday, 14 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

An interesting discussion but I must say that if I were not a fan of Nick Drake this thread wouldn't have convinced me neither. But how can a discussion on music convince anyone of holding that music in esteem? If it could then it would be sufficient to discuss on it instead of listening to it. And that can't be.

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. 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. For me rap all sounds the same as I don't like it and don't want to dig deeper. But that does not mean that rap is artistically inferior to other popular music.

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? Drake has his own style in singing, he had a very distinct voice, either it touches you or it doesn't. I find it pure and direct. It has touched me right from the first time I listened to it, which was more than twenty years ago. And to be honest I don't give a damn what anyone (be it a critic or whoever) thinks about the quality of Drake's music.

alex in mainhattan, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

The question that springs to my mind is "Why is versatility neccessarily an aesthetic good?". Nick Drake, I think it's fair to say, treads very similar territory over most of his records - and you can summarise that territory with words like "haunting", "melancholy" etc. But might the interest in Drake's work be in the (perhaps tiny) differences in melancholy you find in his songs - amal25 above dismisses Drake for his lack of "nuance" 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). I'm reminded of one of my favourite rock quotes, Julian Cope on Tony Conrad and Faust: "repeating...over & over on the off chance that the truth might just be a slightly different shade to the last one they tried."

Tom, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

For the second time in the last five days I have to agree 100% to what Tom wrote. I still didn't get into Abba though. ;-)

alex in mainhattan, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

(Re 'versatility') Drake = the AC/DC of folk? (Funny a band picking a name meaning 'versatility' then going on to be synonymous with its opposite)

dave q, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

"If you want diversity choose a different artist! DO NOT look for diversity within the artist. If I want steak, I'm not gonna eat fish!" - T. Nugent

dave q, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I'm using "Northern Sky" as my wedding song. Yipee.

Chris, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

He's the only acoustic singer-songwriter I ever listen to.

sundar subramanian, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

There's as much diversity in the 3 ND albums as you get in most artists first few records really. He probably didn't get to fully develop as an artist, but he sure had a beautiful voice.

g, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

This discussion will soon be pushed into the abyss, but hey.

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.

, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

But might the interest in Drake's work be in the (perhaps tiny) differences in melancholy you find in his songs - amal25 above dismisses Drake for his lack of "nuance"

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.

, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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"?

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.

The Actual Mr. Jones, Monday, 15 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

(Meant to withdraw that last comment as too snarky before greenspun went down, but looking over it again, it's not. Except "liked repetition" should be "admired"/"considered it a virtue".)

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

The Actual Mr. Jones, Thursday, 18 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

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.

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.

, Thursday, 18 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

ok then

The Actual Mr. Jones, Thursday, 18 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

shortly before his premature death, and on board a house boat in the seine where he was drafting new material for Francoise Hardy, Drake discovered a hitherto unknown species of gibbon indigenous to the area of Saint Paul/The Bastille. His hauntingly beautiful and melancholy drawings of the simian creature and accompanying stark and hauntingly beautiful biological tracts may well be what eventually earns him his haunting place in history. (Reuters)

Pulpo, Friday, 19 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

senor pulpissimo is my new best friend

mark s, Friday, 19 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

I think we've found Mike Hanle y's long-lost British cousin.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 19 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

The more I've thought about this, the more I've come to the conclusion that Nick Drake would be a terrible artist if there were more variety to his work. The whole complex, singular construction of What Drake Is relies upon his actually being this thing, this hermetically sealed closed-loop entity that presents itself as a (melancholy) solace of sorts, morphing moods but never the overarching framework. No one wants Drake to turn out to the crowd and trying different things: his entire appeal is the way he stands in the corner with his back to you, clutching his guitar and mumbling mournfully. The whole point of listening is to somehow squeeze yourself between him and the corner walls, where you can hear him.

nabisco%%, Friday, 19 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

(He is less a friend with whom to go drinking and talk politics than a friend with whom to get locked in an empty room.)

nabisco%%, Friday, 19 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

If you and Nick Drake were in it the room wouldn't be empty now would it.

Tracer Hand, Friday, 19 July 2002 00:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

11 months pass...
Oh but it would!

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 27 June 2003 05:40 (11 years ago) Permalink

funny, I put on 5 Leaves Left for the first time in a while yesterday. I think the repetition is completely part of the charm, whereby some of the songs put the listener in a sort of state of trance, which is really unusual for this type of music. I'm thinking of material like 'Things behind the Sun' or 'Cello Song'

Fabrice (Fabfunk), Friday, 27 June 2003 07:40 (11 years ago) Permalink

Nick Drake was in a band in high school with Chris DeBurgh.

Chris V. (Chris V), Friday, 27 June 2003 10:36 (11 years ago) Permalink

I thought Drake refused to let Chris DeBurgh be in his band because DeBurgh was "too short"?

fwiw I love all of Five Leaves Left but onyl sporadic tracks from his other two LPs and the TONR set.

Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Friday, 27 June 2003 11:18 (11 years ago) Permalink

yeah your right. Ok, they were almost in a band together in hs.

Chris V. (Chris V), Friday, 27 June 2003 11:34 (11 years ago) Permalink

Nick made beautiful music. He doesn't deserve the hate he gets on this thread. =(

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 27 June 2003 17:20 (11 years ago) Permalink

I do not hate him.

Chris V. (Chris V), Friday, 27 June 2003 17:21 (11 years ago) Permalink

3 years pass...

So forget this cruel world
Where I belong
I'll just sit and wait
And sing my song.
And if one day you should see me in the crowd
Lend a hand and lift me
To your place in the cloud.

beautiful song.

Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 1 June 2007 02:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

Drake is lovely and his production is so suprisingly clear, a friend of mine was quite suprised when I told him it was 60s music I was playing. I wish I had more of his stuff. Or hell, any.

Trayce, Friday, 1 June 2007 02:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

quite a bit of hatred on this thread.

I like him. I liked him more about 5 years ago when I knew less about music.

Drooone, Friday, 1 June 2007 03:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Pink Moon is one of those albums that I can't stop listening to once I've started. Whenever I play a track it's like "if you give a mouse a cookie..."

Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 1 June 2007 03:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

I agree, Pink Moon is mind blowing.

Drooone, Friday, 1 June 2007 03:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

This is the missing link in the Nick Drake Story” (Joe Boyd)

We are pleased to announce the release of a privately-pressed CD plus a collection of poems by Molly Drake, Nick Drake’s mother.

Some of you will be aware of her songs having watched the film A Skin Too Few or having bought the compilation album Family Tree.

It is due the response from this exposure that we feel the time may be right to release some more material.

Molly Drake wrote and performed songs just for herself, her friends and her family. She did not seek publication for them or for her poems, which seem to have been deeply personal observations. Fortunately, for us, her husband made amateur recordings of her songs on tapes that have lain dormant for 60 years.

The sound quality of the recordings reflects their home-made nature as well as the age of the magnetic tape. Though they have been repaired and made listenable to, the recordings have not been over-restored, since we feel that the sound quality is an integral part of this first experience of Molly’s music. The entire recording was engineered by John Wood, Nick Drake’s friend, engineer and co-producer of Pink Moon.

The 19 songs include How Wild The Wind Blows, I Remember, Poor Mum and Do You Ever Remember?

The CD comes with a 70 page booklet containing 45 poems housed in a card portfolio.

This initial edition is only available here:

www.alimentation.cc/nick_drake/cds/molly-drake.html

Lee626, Friday, 11 May 2012 23:11 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.