Talk:Nick Drake/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Audio Recording

Added an audio recording for the article, although honestly I probably mispronounced many things. If anyone wants to record a better version to replace mine, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailes Grises (talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You did a great job with it. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pye covers

I'm puzzled by this reference to Pye Records. They specialised in this label for their cover versions? Perhaps it means Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Howlin' Wolf etc. on Pye International Records? Then it should say so. Rothorpe (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, now it does, and I've added a section at Pye International Records to explain. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cambridge

It needs to be made clear if this means Cambridge university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems clear to me. 188.116.36.6 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Blues influence

I find that there is a lot of blues in some of Nick Drake's music. For example Black Mountain Blues and Smoking Too Long are songs that I find very bluesy. I would not reference what I am saying but surely someone has written something about the blues in Nick Drake's music. It would be awesome if it was listed as one of the genres that his music belongs to as some people forget about the blues side of Nick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.222.216 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello everyone,

I started this RFC to establish a consensus regarding the following: Three different users remove the infobox, something which I believe is because of personal preferences. However, I can not read the minds of other peoples, so I just want to hear from other people what they think about the removal of the infobox. User:WesleyDodds cited on my talk page WP:BRD, now let us discuss. My opponents think the infobox is mandatory, and I think it is mandatory but very useful for quick-checks. Since this is a featured article, it is a wise decision of me to avoid further edit-wars. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the article has had an infobox for years, including when it was today's featured article, and it was only summarily removed the other day. Given the utter bogosity of the arguments presented in favour of removal the onus would appear to be on those insistent on doing so to explain themselves. "It's optional" is not an argument to remove it, but merely an excuse for doing so; "never previously considered necessary" is a serious misrepresentation at best; "consensus is against you" is an outcome, rather than an argument. Certainly the way that it was tag-teamed back out of the article by three different editors in quick succession raises an eyebrow, and it may be worth checking said users' other recent contributions for evidence of similar underhandedness. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept that I was hasty in removing it. I saw the main writer of this article had removed it and assumed that that was the consensus status. However, thumperward's accusation that we are "tag-teaming", and especially to demand that our contribs be checked for "evidence of similar underhandedness" is unfortunate and completely devoid of good faith.—indopug (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm happy to apologise. Sorry for suggesting there was something underhanded about it: you were acting in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should stay. And the "main writer", however that might be defined, has no special privileges or extra authority. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris is quite right; infobox has been here forever, is bog-standard /especially/ on musical artists. And Andy's right, too; articles do not have WP:OWNers, as much as some crave that role. Iboxen stays. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support use of infoboxes. DavidK2 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support infoboexes . 188.116.36.6 (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Infobox - Discussions about infobox removal have been a source of controversy, however, I do agree that infoboxes have a visual basic information which is like the article resume (birth, dead, record label, age of death, current age and so on), and is somewhat irreplaceable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Infobox - its a featured article; people use those as guides to creating new GA and FA, so let's not make it more difficult than necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Infobox Are we really at the point where we fight against those trying to add an infobox? AutomaticStrikeout 15:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Uh. keep the info box. How on earth can someone argue against an infobox? I can't find a single GA or FA that doesn't have one...I'm sure there are one or two, but really. I agree with AutomaticStrikeout. We are fighting against infoboxes. Good grief. Go Phightins! 15:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the argument that there isn't a single GA or FA without an infobox is inaccurate. Furthermore, the editor who initated the RfC did not try to initiate discussion, did not follow a BRD cycle, instead deciding to template a regular (the primary contributor here) and initiating an RfC. I would prefer to see this discussed, in regards to the merits of keeping an infobox, with more than other stuff exists. Furthermore, pls see WP:DISINFOBOX. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Truthkeeper (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Two comments 1.) I said I'm sure there is, I just wasn't recalling any off the top of my head. 2a.) WP:DISINFOBOX is an essay, not a policy and 2b.) Even if it was policy, I'd argue that this infobox is of value. Go Phightins! 20:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Every article should ideally have an infobox for relational purposes. There should be more of them, not less. §FreeRangeFrog 04:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Infobox: I mean, where else are you going to hang and frame the picture image? Where would the genre edit wars go? Fylbecatulous talk 01:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Infobox because it helps to orient the reader to the subject of the article for those unfamiliar. It's a long article and the infobox provides the basic facts. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, Sometimes there are legitimate problems with specific elements of an infobox, and I agree that it is not helpful to force the usage of every possibly useable/applicable field (selectivism vs completism, well explained here) - If there are specific problems with parts of an infobox, then participants should discuss those, and come to rational decisions on each element. But discussing it as an "all or nothing" decision is fundamentally harmful (oversimplifying a complex issue into a falsely black&white perspective). —Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think it's ok here, where the article is very long and goes into great detail, and it's hard for the reader to detect some basic facts, such as appear in the infobox? I found the infobox in this case enormously helpful. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm clearly stating (or trying to) the same as I do in every infobox flareup - "infoboxes are good, but ffs stop trying to fill in every field whilst ignoring or steamrolling all objections&concerns. Figure out what the specific problem(s) is, and discuss it - result: either find a solution to each specific problem, or agree to leave the problematic field(s) empty."
  Asking a binary - "infobox: yes or no?" - is exactly what I'm opposed to. It's not that fracking simple! If participants (on both sides) acknowledged that, we'd be able to smoothly resolve the vast majority of these disagreements... Does politics teach us nothing?! Polarizing a dispute is the worst way forward. —Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• well, I'm responding to this particular case. I find this infobox helpful, as it reveals useful information not easily gleaned from the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is best just closed. It was over 3.5 weeks ago. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are bootlegs deliberately not mentioned?

Hello, Is it deliberate not to mention bootleg recordings, like "Tanworth-in-Arden 1967/68" or "Time has told me"? They are available on Amazon and in record shops. Non official, but available. Can I add them, or should we not mention bootlegs here?

Hjuvi (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Melancholy Haunting of Nicholas Parkes

A user has removed this so I thought I'd check it out. The Melancholy Haunting of Nicholas Parkes appears to be part of an anthology published by a writers group in Derby. I'm sure it's worth a read but the story and its author fail WP:GNG so shouldn't be included in this article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, quite agree. The sources are both blogs, one of which is essentially just a random list of books. The story itself is not about Drake, it's about a ghost based on him: "Nicholas Parkes is also exceptionally believable, a product of Barker's decision to base this phantom and the entire tale around the tragic downfall of British musician Nick Drake." Really not sure how much light it could ever shed on Drake's actual real life. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The story featured as the lead story in a single-author hardback collection called "Tenebrous Tales" by Christopher Barker which was published in 2010 by the Ex Occidente Press. It was subsequently reviewed in a "Best Of Year Horror" hardback anthology edited by Ellen Datlow, receiving an 'Honorable Mention'. According to the Amazon kindle entry, where the story is available to purchase as an e book, it has been read & commented upon by Drake's manager, Joe Boyd, who acknowledges that is based upon Nick Drake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.154.210 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Mr Boyd is perfectly entitled to his own opinions. Where did he make that acknowledgement? Has he also said what light, if any, it casts on the life of Nick Drake? What light does it cast? Is there any published review which assesses this favourably? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nit-picking. You are moving the goal posts with each comment. The original concern was the story did not appear in a book, that it appeared in an obscure regional anthology, ect, which was wrong. Now that this has been corrected, let's move on, and leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.154.210 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have said nothing about any "obscure regional anthology". How can we "move on" if you have answered none of my questions?. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, on closer examination the Christopher Barker in the anthology would appear not to be the same author as the Christopher Barker who wrote this story. My bad for believing Amazon's link to "Christopher Richard Barker" would list works by the same author, not authors with the same or similar names. But as I have said elsewhere, this novella has not received any attention from mainstream media. For it to be notable for inclusion here I'd expect to have seen it reviewed by someone like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph or The Times Literary Supplement. Failing that I'd expect to see Mr Boyd quoted somewhere, making reference to the story. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, time for some original research. There is no entry for Tenebrous Tales on Amazon.co.uk, or Amazon.com, although the e-book The Melancholy Haunting of Nicholas Parkes can be found on both. Tenebrous Tales was published by Ex-Occidente Press, but had a limited print run of 160 copies, retailing for $55. A relatively new/unknown author would be unlikely to sell many copies at such a high price, but publishing costs can be expensive and the company would want to recoup its outlay. It seems surprising not to at least find an Amazon entry for it though, as generally any book for publication is assigned an ISBN number, gets mentioned by Nielsen Bookscan, and tends to find its way onto the websites of the major book retailers (Waterstones, W. H. Smith, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc). I'm guessing the Datlow anthology is this one from 2011 that appears to cover books published through 2010. But in any case, without a wider audience this story doesn't meet the generable notability guidelines, and its author fails WP:AUTHOR. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not just the way it is. What you mean is that arbitrary nitpicking is rife on Wikipedia. Numerous small presses are quite rightly referenced on Wiki and many of the authors published by the Ex Occidente Press have their own Wiki entries. Furthermore, copies of this sold-out book occasionally sell on Ebay for three figure sums, such is the book's collectability. Also, the book has been seen by Joe Boyd, Drake's manager, who has acknowledged it to be about Drake, and it has also been reviewed by Ellen Datlow, who is a well-known figure in literary circles. On all counts it scores relevance to Drake's posthumous popularity. It is certainly of more relevance than a television car advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.154.210 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The onus is on you to provide WP:RS. Simple as. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Name some authors who've been published by Ex Occidente Press who have Wikipedia articles, provide some links to the ebay pages you mention, and provide some reliable sources, preferably from a mainstream newspaper or journal. Then perhaps we can weigh up the evidence for its inclusion. I have to say at the moment though a book with a print run of 160 copies by an author with no other published works just isn't notable. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

At least Ellen Datlow is notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's one thing, I guess. If he confirms the story is mentioned in the 2011 Datlow anthology I'll see if my local library can get hold of a copy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd ask as I had to return some books today. Sadly no Datlow titles on their database, but they may be able to get them from another library. Failing that I suppose it might be possible to pick up a second hand copy from a charity shop or somewhere. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

A link to Ellen Datlow's website, where she singles out four of Barker's stories for praise in her anthology, was provided in the initial revision. This praise first appeared in the original anthology, copies of which are available in any library, in addition to Amazon, ABE, Biblio etc. Datlow only comments on books she has actually read and physically held in her hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.211.1 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no matter how you try to spin this argument the story is not notable enough for a mention here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. The book's existence has been verified. It is listed on the publisher's website, it is listed on Amazon, Goodreads etc. Reviews of the book have been published in two notable sources [the British Fantasy Society's journal 'Prism', where Barker's book received the longest review in Prism's history, and in Ellen Datlow's anthology 'Best Horror Of The Year']. The size of the print run is largely irrelevant. Many works by writers, artists et al have been produced in small numbers. Of far more importance is the relevance of the work itself. Being cited for a 'Notable Mention' by the leading anthologist in her field suggests that the notability criteria has been satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.211.1 (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• The consensus here is that the notability criteria have not been satisfied. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book. You are now edit warring and can be blocked. I suggest you leave it and move on. freshacconci talktalk 14:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a fact that given the skills and time anyone can write and publish a book. Doing so doesn't automatically confirm notability. Also, any book published is usually mentioned by Nielsen, and consequently finds its way onto the websites of all the major book retailers. Very few of them become well known, and for this story to be mentioned in this article it would have to be. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Consummated?

Hi! Nice article, thanks. One thing that seems out of place for my taste is the remark about whether his relationships to women were "consummated" or not. I don't really see the relavance. 84.56.55.198 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

But the source quoted uses that word. It says: "The biography includes interviews with Drake’s two closest female friends — Ryde and fellow musician Linda Thompson. While he was attracted to both, it appears he never consummated either relationship. Ryde became the nearest he ever had to a girlfriend, although she preferred the description “best (girl) friend”. Dann has discovered that Ryde, who met Drake in 1967, had told the singer about a week before his death that she wanted “more space in their relationship. I couldn’t cope with it. I asked him for some time. And I never saw him again”." Do you have any suggestion for an alternative? I agree that it's a little irrelevant and so maybe should be removed altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Posthumous popularity

I'm also not sure that this section should contain snippets of songs that have been used in feature films. It's very unusual, after all, for a film to feature an entire song (unless it's a musical or music-based film). I'm far more concerned that we have references to the use of songs in adverts - for Volkswagen Cabrio and AT&T - which surely can have used only a few seconds of the music, and in probably what many would see as a very "inappropriate" way? But maybe there are media awards for this kind of thing. I am a bit baffled, however, as to why that entire section about Joe Boyd in 2009 and the 2010 tours has been removed? That seems to me to be perfectly "legitimate" and a real indication of popular re-awakening of interest in Drake's music. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the adverts and restored the Boyd paragraph, as this seems to make the section more balanced. But fully open to any other suggestions. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Molly Drake's recordings

Should a separate article be created to cover Molly Drake's recordings? They are attracting a fair amount of media interest, for example here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly support a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Me too. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, anybody up for it? Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Piano

"Drake played piano in the school orchestra,..."

Orchestras don't include a piano, except for a few modern pieces that have a part for a piano, and piano concertos, for which the piano is not regarded as part of the orchestra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.121.154 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Verbatim Youtube documentary

This documentary (documentary) Nick Drake: Life of a Fragile Genius on YouTube is verbatim w/ much of the article text. (Is one or the other therefore considered plagiarized?) --IHTS (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Blue plaque

I've trimmed the reference to the newly installed memorial blue plaque at Far Leys. I agree that "BBC Music Day" is inconsequential, but I think a mention of his only blue plaque is warranted. I hope this is acceptable. Unfortunately, it seems the plaque has the wrong year of birth: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Grand Martin, in this instance; I just worry about how these things grow and all of a sudden you have an unwieldy listy in pop sect. Ceoil (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

It's taken 43 years to get a plaque, and then they get the year wrong!? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Can Theresa May get anything right. Ceoil (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Great to see a strong and stable true blue plaque, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nick Drake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126041344/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/nick-drake/made-to-love-magic.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/nick-drake/made-to-love-magic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128081822/http://nickdrakegathering.wix.com/nickdrake/ to http://nickdrakegathering.wix.com/nickdrake/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nick Drake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811144509/http://aplacetobe.cc/ to http://aplacetobe.cc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

please change the information about five leaves left

five leaves left was named after the home of the sister of an eminent doctor who lived at far leys.

the sister, Mary Sanger, left her home, which was called 'Five Leaves' in Boston, USA, and emigrated to Britain where she lived with her brother and cared for him until the home was passed on to new owners. the Drake family purchased the property in 1952.

the album is not named after the cigarette papers as most people believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagenickdrake (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

We will need a reliable source first. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like an incredibly tortuous and contrived explanation. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)