rdo wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Versions (or covers, or renditions, or whatever) do matter and that's what 99% of RP-listeners do rate. To wit: Elbow produced the fine song Mirrorball (currently rated 7.8 on RP), but there has to be a way to punish Peter Gabriel for what he did to it (currently rated 5.5 on RP, relatively low, as RP ratings go).

jagdriver wrote:

I rate songs, I don't rate versions, renditions, covers, recordings, etc...however it's very hard to separate the song from the original recording of the song which first brought it to my attention. So, I feel no compunction in giving this a 10. Only a complete dufus could screw this song up. For me, it will always be Nick Drake's song, as I first heard it. And most credit goes to him for composing it. He is the one for which the brilliant song will always bring credit, hundreds of years into the future. It would pretty ridiculous for Jose to consider this an achievment of his own, except that he does a fine job here performing it.


Consider this thought experiment. What would you rate the song Amazing Grace, which many consider the greatest song ever? Does it really even matter who performs it? Certainly, you could rate the performance of the song, as opposed to the song itself, that is your choice. But since John Newton's Amazing Grace cannot possibly be tied to any single recording or performer, you are forced to somehow rate the song apart from any rendition. What do you rate it? I think people should try to rate the songs here, and not the performance. I consider rating the performance something they do on American Idol ( nothing wrong with that, BTW), but RP is more about songs on an aesthetic plane high above that. The talent being rated here is the composition.

I guess I'm in the minority, I like both versions. For me, on the spectrum of singers, Jose Gonzalez is the perfect voice to listen to in the background while I'm working, it's calming and pleasant. At the other end of the of the spectrum Tom Waits and a rusty saw scraping a chalk board.

Yeah, this one is kinda like his 'Teardrop' cover... doesn't really add a lot to any new interpretation.

=5=

BonyParadise wrote:
This cover is wimpy. Jose's voice isn't anywhere close to the evocative nature of Nick's original.

Soon later they painted their faces blue.
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Would you try to improve on Art Garfunkel's version of Bridge Over Troubled Water?

lovely!

I like Jose Gonzalez and it's good to hear someone covering Nick Drake - but there isn't enough in this version to make it stand out for me.

the opening made me immediately think of these guys:



They ("From Scratch") were a great percussion outfit that used batteries of PVC tubing which they hit with flipflops back in NZ in the early 80s.
When they performed at the Pacific arts festival people were worried the Pacific islanders would ditch their wooden drums in favor of PVC downpipes (needlessly as it turned out).

All they've proven is that this is a really good song. It makes me want to hear the original more.

Not doing much for me at all really. Just kinda flat

TheKing2 wrote:

actually, it's a very different take on the song and i liked it instantly - something that is rare with covers for great songs.

and coy -

jose and the books ??
nice cover

Hmm, nothing added to ND. Really

Businessgypsy wrote: Thank you for that comment its brightened my day. By the way stoning…. do you think we are barbarians? I would hang them as befits our enlightened western society.

I've got Nick Drake's song on my MP3 player, and now, hearing it performed by someone else, I have to veto this version. No emotion, no nuance, no understanding of what Drake was conveying. It's just words and music. Personally, I have serious doubts that anyone can do Nick Drake's music better than he did.

Wow, a group more devoted to fundamental dogma than the Taliban! This infidel says yea, so stone away. As an incentive, I'll begin by stoning myself!

Bad idea for covering a brilliant song.

meh..... prefer the original