Talk:Nick Drake/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Blue plaque date

the date on the blue plaque is wrong, it should be 1948, not 1946.

has anyone tried contacting the bbc music / blue plaque trust to ask for it to be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagenickdrake (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Last June..... "A BBC spokesperson said: “We are aware of the error and will be correcting it as soon as possible."" Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Third-class degree

Was he awarded a third-class degree, or not? I had assumed that "Dann (2006), p. 30" was an WP:RS for this. Or are we just saying it's too trivial to mention? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The editor who introduced that sentence worded it to say that he was awarded a third at the end of his first year. I believe it was you that then edited it to say simply that he was awarded a third, which made it sound like he completed the course and left with a third. [1] Would he still have been awarded a degree if he left nine months early? I don't know exactly what it says on p. 30 of Dann. Dubmill (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was hoping you might have that book. That GoogleBooks link for the book, give in the references, is not searchable for me. Maybe User:Ceoil has access to a copy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Using the 'search inside' facility on Amazon I was able to find what Dann said: 'Unsurprisingly Nick ended his first academic year at Cambridge with very poor results ... In his prelim exams, taken in May 1968, Nick was awarded a third, the lowest pass.' So the 'third' refers to the grade he was given on completion of his first year. Personally, I think it is too much detail, and the text in that section flows better without that piece of information inserted in the middle of it. Dubmill (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

His poor results are salient and can be taken as sign of a growing and more general apathy. We say "unwilling to apply himself", but this could be better put. Dont like "not perform well", but something along these lines would do. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Early reel-to-reel and 4-track demo tapes

The article says: "A four-track demo, recorded in Drake's college room in early 1968..." But this source talks about "... six songs on the tapes, recorded on a four-track tape machine in 1967", without any mention of Boyd. Are these the same? Who's got the date (or the format) wrong? Were there two sets? The part played by Beverley Martyn, in the story of the tapes, might be worthy of mention anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Early (mid-90s) accounts of Drake's life were in respects akin to archaeology. ok with sources differ, and am sure you can figure it out. Ceoil (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Eventually. Sometimes I feel like such a parasite. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries Martin. Will lake a look later also. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of tracks broadcast on the John Peel Show, Aug 6 1969

Holding out an olive branch here and, granted, I suppose my reference to 'personal communication' doesn't cut the mustard in terms of a reliable source needed in Wikiland.

The fact is, though, that the assertion that only three tracks were actually broadcast is wrong, plain and simple. There is no source link to this statement either, merely one at the end of the next paragraph which only concerns Mike Chapman's quote about a gig, not this session.

All five tracks were broadcast. Anyone who has the limited 10" and/or download can hear very tiny fragments of Peel's voice at the end of each track, for instance, as well as the back cover of the record stating the broadcast date with no reference being made to two tracks not having been broadcast. I can offer first-hand accounts with Cally on this subject if anyone's interested (which I'm sure a lot of you are, yes?)

So, with all due respect, I'll ask again: if there is any reliable source to the assertion that only three tracks were broadcast I'd really like to see it. Otherwise, on who's authority is this statement based?

Rumpletweezer (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If we're using the source for the Chapman quote, it states "5 August - BBC1 radio session – Nick records 4 songs for the John Peel show – 1. Time of No Reply, 2. Cello Song, 3. River Man and 4. Three Hours. No copy of this performance has been made public." The article currently claims five songs recorded, 3 of which were broadcast. As you say, there's no source for those claims. The chronology used for the Chapman quote states that it is compiled "from a variety of sources, including Patrick Humphries' 1998 biography of Nick Drake (Bloomsbury Press, 1998, 279p), plus assorted web sites and published articles" and the chronology is hosted by University of Wollongong. As far as reliable sources go, it's paltry. It appears to be well done and is thorough but it's still a personal blog. However, this is all we have at the moment. So, the source we have been using also states 4 songs recorded but says nothing about what was actually broadcast and no copy has been made public. Where that leaves us is this (if we're going to follow Wikipedia policy): we use the chronology version or we remove it altogether unless a source is found to verify what is currently written. Interest in Drake has increased to the point that more sources may be forthcoming (albeit all using the same few archival primary sources). It's all hit-and-miss. Can we verify the 5 August BBC1 radio session? If yes, how many songs? And finally, what songs were broadcast? I think we need to go in that order, verify the recording took place, figure out what was recorded, figure out what was broadcast. This may seem needlessly fussy, particularly as we're dealing with a famously dead person and don't need to address WP:BLP, but this is a featured article and we can't add claims without sources (and for the record, I have no idea how long this section has been in the article. As it's making a claim with no source, it is in all likelihood a drive-by edit and no one noticed it's appearance. freshacconci (✉) 21:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)