The Books — Cello Song (w/ José González)
Album: Dark Was The NightAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 1961
Length: 3:49
Plays (last 30 days): 4
share
tweet
Strange face, with your eyes
So pale and sincere
Underneath, you know well
You have nothing to fear
For the dreams that came to you
when you were young
Told of a life where spring has sprung
You would seem so frail
In the cold of the night
When the armies of emotion
Go out to fight
But while the earth
Sinks to its grave
You sail to the sky
On the crest of a wave
So forget this cruel world
Where I belong
Ill 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
So pale and sincere
Underneath, you know well
You have nothing to fear
For the dreams that came to you
when you were young
Told of a life where spring has sprung
You would seem so frail
In the cold of the night
When the armies of emotion
Go out to fight
But while the earth
Sinks to its grave
You sail to the sky
On the crest of a wave
So forget this cruel world
Where I belong
Ill 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
Comments (184)add comment
“Celestial Soda Pop” by Ray Lynch!
If you’ve not heard it, try to find it and give it a listen.
“New Age” but soooo light and relaxing.
Sounds like a remix - which I can appreciate since I love both songs.
If you’ve not heard it, try to find it and give it a listen.
“New Age” but soooo light and relaxing.
Sounds like a remix - which I can appreciate since I love both songs.
wow, two nick drake covers in 10 minutes, loving the focus on ND, mayhaps play more OG :D
The production on this is sublime.
Beautiful version of the Cello song from my beloved Nick Drake
prefer the original and hear it in Son Volt's Medication
This is very nice.
Laptopdog wrote:
Agreed! Two of my favorite voices ever.
I'm thinking Nick Drake would love this.
I'm thinking Nick Drake would love this.
a good cover brings something to the original. this electronic take with its laid back spoken lyrics are a "nice take" on this Nick Drake Masterpiece
blueman group meets nick drake, pleasant enough.
Edweirdo wrote:
average rating a 7.1 puts you in a distinct minority weirdo lol
I initially rated this a 3. I must have been feeling particularly generous that day.
average rating a 7.1 puts you in a distinct minority weirdo lol
I love what he adds to the songs he covers. His version of Teardrop by Massive Attack being one of my favorite ever. Imo, they become totally independent of the original. Just found out he does "Love Will Tear Us Apart" but have yet to hear it.
I initially rated this a 3. I must have been feeling particularly generous that day.
top cover! lovely!
yofitofu wrote:
Covers are usually interpretations, probably not attempts at betterness.
I like this a) for itself b) for the link to Nick
Sorry Nick Drake can't be bettered. Even if you are doing dishes in the background.
Covers are usually interpretations, probably not attempts at betterness.
I like this a) for itself b) for the link to Nick
Sorry Nick Drake can't be bettered. Even if you are doing dishes in the background.
Two terrible Nick Drake covers in a few hours 
uksminas wrote:
Is this in lieu of the ubiquitous Pink Floyd comment?
Uakti?
nu11 wrote:
Listening with headphones today and finally heard the water. To me sounds more like a fountain or a small waterfall on a stream. Nice background.
Why it sounds like somebody is taking a shower in the studio?
Listening with headphones today and finally heard the water. To me sounds more like a fountain or a small waterfall on a stream. Nice background.
nu11 wrote:
Water feature on RP.
Why it sounds like somebody is taking a shower in the studio?
Water feature on RP.
God bless Nick Drake.
EXCELLENT! I never heard of them before. Thanx RP!
NeilBlanchard wrote:
I recently added a really good DAC (Denafrips Ares II) and a balanced headphone amp (xDuoo MT-604) and that sound seems to be another percussion track, and there are many other details that I had not heard until now.
GOOD STUFF! ...what cans are you wearing on your head?
I recently added a really good DAC (Denafrips Ares II) and a balanced headphone amp (xDuoo MT-604) and that sound seems to be another percussion track, and there are many other details that I had not heard until now.
GOOD STUFF! ...what cans are you wearing on your head?
theirongiant wrote:
I recently added a really good DAC (Denafrips Ares II) and a balanced headphone amp (xDuoo MT-604) and that sound seems to be another percussion track, and there are many other details that I had not heard until now.
Regarding the shower comment, it sounds like a compression artifact of the percussive arpeggio.
I recently added a really good DAC (Denafrips Ares II) and a balanced headphone amp (xDuoo MT-604) and that sound seems to be another percussion track, and there are many other details that I had not heard until now.
Sounded like Blue Man Group.
Regarding the shower comment, it sounds like a compression artifact of the percussive arpeggio.
This is a nice electronic tribute
It's ok, but ruined by the relentless percussion.
A delicate, respectful, inspired cover of an immortal song.
It's a well executed version I just heard today. The guys voice does the song justice and the level of musicianship is solid. I ranked it 7 as it isn't better but does respect the legacy of a great song!
nu11 wrote:
Yea, I thought it was raining. I've got it on flac, it's reduced but it's still there. I think it's quantisation noise because the track is full of impulsive sounds and the decoder is getting confused.
Why it sounds like somebody is taking a shower in the studio?
Yea, I thought it was raining. I've got it on flac, it's reduced but it's still there. I think it's quantisation noise because the track is full of impulsive sounds and the decoder is getting confused.
Why it sounds like somebody is taking a shower in the studio?
Why not?
I like it how he picks the synth strings hehe.
I like it how he picks the synth strings hehe.
fortheloveofpete wrote:
...and I totally disagree. Drake is like Cohen. Let newer generations put their own spin on genius.
Please make it stop
Totally disrespectful to a true genius
...and I totally disagree. Drake is like Cohen. Let newer generations put their own spin on genius.
Please make it stop
Totally disrespectful to a true genius
I didn't know this cover existed. They nailed it!
buddy213 wrote:
I recall in '76 a ludicrously expensive coffee percolator I bought for my student hovel has a similar vibe!
Is that shower water in the background?
I recall in '76 a ludicrously expensive coffee percolator I bought for my student hovel has a similar vibe!
I too love the Nick Drake version but this is an excellent effort
Steely_D wrote:
first time I've heard this
tired of the Nick Drake version
like this one a lot, it's very pretty
I love the Nick Drake version, and I'm very very fond of this one as well.
I have room in my head for both.
I have room in my head for both.
first time I've heard this
tired of the Nick Drake version
like this one a lot, it's very pretty
drwhy wrote:
I have learned to really enjoy Jose Gonzalez, especially his stuff with Zero 7 and Junip. Easy listening.
Agreed. I love his voice. I listen to Jose Gonzalez whenever my mind is spinning and I need to calm down. buddy213 wrote:
I thought that was my heating system coming on!
Is that shower water in the background?
I thought that was my heating system coming on!
I have learned to really enjoy Jose Gonzalez, especially his stuff with Zero 7 and Junip. Easy listening.
My fav Nick Drake song! Not a huge fan of covers though. There are some covers out there that transcend the originals but not many. This one doesn’t transcend but I I do like it. The comment “I have room in my head for both” is perfect
Another test post from 7.0.1-747 with offline simulation.
Test post from 7.0.1 build 747 on a historic song.
Is that shower water in the background?
nice take.
I love this song. I would have rated it higher, but Nick Drake's version is godlike to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Gonz%C3%A1lez_(singer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Was_the_Night_(album)
I hope this helps, Bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Was_the_Night_(album)
I hope this helps, Bill.
I really like this alot, as well as the original. I love the instrumentation here, it really is interesting and textural.
I could do without the sound of the rain falling from inside an open garage door,though.
I could do without the sound of the rain falling from inside an open garage door,though.
The Artist is immortal. His contribution will always exist and will also live on through re-interpretation. We live in an electronic age of detachment, thus, this makes sense.
The key when it comes to covers is that the musicians love the song they are singing and only wish to perform it with sufficient quality & maybe enough of their own spin on it that they don't embarrass themselves or what they think of the song. If they feel strongly enough about their performance and/or wish to pay tribute to the original artist, then they will add it to their album playlist. If there is enough interest or pressure to release the song, then they will do so.
I would think that extremely few artists come at a cover from an egotistical standpoint ("I can do this better") instead of with a measure of respect & enjoyment ("Gosh, I wish I could do this as well as this artist"). "Hopefully, somebody else likes my version on its own merits or as a counterpoint to the original." Hell, you or I wouldn't sing a song at a karaoke bar if we didn't enjoy it and hope we don't make a mess of it in front of 15 people (or you could be drunk & don't care). These musicians are putting their music into the hands of 1000's of listeners who aren't standing in the crowd, getting caught up in the moment of a show, and can blast away because it doesn't meet the expectations of the original.
I would think that extremely few artists come at a cover from an egotistical standpoint ("I can do this better") instead of with a measure of respect & enjoyment ("Gosh, I wish I could do this as well as this artist"). "Hopefully, somebody else likes my version on its own merits or as a counterpoint to the original." Hell, you or I wouldn't sing a song at a karaoke bar if we didn't enjoy it and hope we don't make a mess of it in front of 15 people (or you could be drunk & don't care). These musicians are putting their music into the hands of 1000's of listeners who aren't standing in the crowd, getting caught up in the moment of a show, and can blast away because it doesn't meet the expectations of the original.
aaronm wrote:
Took me about 30 seconds to get over being mad that this wasn't Nick Drake and just enjoy this version. It's good!
You'r much quicker than me Aaronm, it took me years to come to the same conclusion you managed in 30s. I've adored Nick Drake for several decades and when I first heard this cover I had an over protective knee jerk reaction to the electronic way they had covered it. However had they done it in a folksy way I probably wouldn't have liked that either. After hearing it several times I realised the problem was with me not with the version. I've now come to the opinion that it is a rather good cover (so good in fact that I recently bought it) and rather than diminishing the song it actually shows what a good songwriter Nick was. Not many songs are strong enough to be covered in a totally different genre, in my opinion, this one clearly is.
Took me about 30 seconds to get over being mad that this wasn't Nick Drake and just enjoy this version. It's good!
Messing with Nick Drake is dissapointing.
I'm not his greatest fan, neither is he a regular listen, but when his unique and elegant sound enters your head, you know it's him and it's wonderful.
Cover songs if you can genuinely improve the original by all means, but not Drake. You can't and you won't.
By the way - adore Radio Paradise. Live long and prosper
I'm not his greatest fan, neither is he a regular listen, but when his unique and elegant sound enters your head, you know it's him and it's wonderful.
Cover songs if you can genuinely improve the original by all means, but not Drake. You can't and you won't.
By the way - adore Radio Paradise. Live long and prosper
Dreadful version.
Not bad to listen to. Like comparing Yazoo to the Flying Pickets, though.
ScottishWillie wrote:
Exactly! I agree. Well said.
Nick Drakes work has a special place in my life and I feel his songs deserve the recognition of being covered by other artists. However I find myself being very protective/sensitive to what others do with them. Not sure this version adds much but it certainly doesn’t diminish it, so perhaps I should settle for that?
Exactly! I agree. Well said.
This isn't a bad cover.
Steely_D wrote:
Great comment!
I have room in my head for both.
Great comment!
I love the Nick Drake version, and I'm very very fond of this one as well.
I have room in my head for both.
I have room in my head for both.
Interesting little electronic vibe to this version. I kinda like it.
brave
Like the original so much better.
eswiley2 wrote:
Covering another artist's song is not an attempt to improve upon it, it's just doing one's own version of it - it's that simple. I'm not sure why so many people in these threads fail to comprehend that; I guess they're not musicians for one thing. I don't especially like this version but who has the authority to tell these guys that they cannot cover this song? Nothing is sacred - get over it.
Would you try to improve on Art Garfunkel's version of Bridge Over Troubled Water? 
Covering another artist's song is not an attempt to improve upon it, it's just doing one's own version of it - it's that simple. I'm not sure why so many people in these threads fail to comprehend that; I guess they're not musicians for one thing. I don't especially like this version but who has the authority to tell these guys that they cannot cover this song? Nothing is sacred - get over it.
Nick Drakes work has a special place in my life and I feel his songs deserve the recognition of being covered by other artists. However I find myself being very protective/sensitive to what others do with them. Not sure this version adds much but it certainly doesn’t diminish it, so perhaps I should settle for that?
rdo wrote:
2. . . at most. Any version.
I'd be careful to assume anything. Assumption is the mother of all cockups.
Consider this thought experiment. What would you rate the song Amazing Grace, which many consider the greatest song ever?
2. . . at most. Any version.
I'd be careful to assume anything. Assumption is the mother of all cockups.
haresfur wrote:
i agree with this person
It's almost always nice to hear a good artist's cover of a good song. It gives a new perspective and helps keeps things fresh when I go back to the original. IMO the only time it makes sense to compare them is when the cover kicks the original's butt. Doesn't come close to doing it in this case, so no matter.
i agree with this person
parnoldo wrote:
yeah
Love Nick Drake's. This...not so much.
yeah
Peter_Bradshaw wrote:
.... ditto
me three :)
.... ditto
me three :)
I like the slightly more staccato notes in the back. Not quite techno, but hinting at it.
Quite pleasant.
Quite pleasant.
parnoldo wrote:
.... ditto
Love Nick Drake's. This...not so much.
.... ditto
It's almost always nice to hear a good artist's cover of a good song. It gives a new perspective and helps keeps things fresh when I go back to the original. IMO the only time it makes sense to compare them is when the cover kicks the original's butt. Doesn't come close to doing it in this case, so no matter.
Love Nick Drake's. This...not so much.
I love Nick Drake. I love Jose Gonzalez. I'm only lukewarm about Jose Gonzalez covering a Nick Drake song.
...did they pull it off? Afraid not.
Theking2 wrote:
Apparently that is all it needed to make it a really good song.
Not sure what to make of this. Add a drumbeat to Nick Drake's song but otherwise copy it. ?
Apparently that is all it needed to make it a really good song.
Wow--what a way to destroy a beautiful song.
If you judge it within the context of what "The Books" and Jose Gonzalez do,.. you realize like many covers,.. they are tributes to wonderful songs. In their own styles (Books and Jose) , this is an excellent cover. I would expect that if Beth Orton did it, it would be in her style and interpretation. (Would actually LOVE a Beth Orton interp of this song.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB3uVARNhmM
i would not rate this as on par with the original... in fact i would have to especially punish for taking a good song and making it bad.
i would not rate this as on par with the original... in fact i would have to especially punish for taking a good song and making it bad.
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).
. . .
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.
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 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:
This cover is wimpy. Jose's voice isn't anywhere close to the evocative nature of Nick's original.
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.
This cover is wimpy. Jose's voice isn't anywhere close to the evocative nature of Nick's original.
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=
=5=
BonyParadise wrote:
This cover is wimpy. Jose's voice isn't anywhere close to the evocative nature of Nick's original.
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.
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:
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
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).
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).
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).
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 -
Hmm, nothing added to ND. Really
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
nice cover
Hmm, nothing added to ND. Really
Businessgypsy wrote:
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!
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
Just too darn upbeat for me ...
Kraftwerk beeping Drake?
I love Nick Drake, Jose Gonzalez and The Books!! This song cannot go wrong!! 10!
6.4 avg rating for this excellent cover? tough audience...
Very good
Too true, but it's damned good
9 because it's a great song to start with. Jose Gonzo's vocal makes it sound like an Arthur Russell song!
I'd say it'ld be darn near next to impossible to screw this one up. 9. 
Nice cover, though Nick is the master......(was)
wow a Nick Drake cover that doesn't suck big hairy donkey balls. Good stuff
Please play more from Dark Was the Night!
Nice!
romeotuma wrote:
This song is good for the external auditory meatus...
...and for the internal spiritual apparatus to which it is connected.
This song is good for the external auditory meatus...
...and for the internal spiritual apparatus to which it is connected.
Ok vocals are kind of weak and the cello could be um, more-differenter. But pleasant to listen to and adds a fresh take on the original.
sdn wrote:
Drake's version is almost minimalist — as is the case with much of Drake's music. He paints his songs with pale washes of color — there is just enough there to make the song beautiful, and not a hint more. It's a masterpiece of subtlety.
Gonzalez, for the most part, honors this simplicity with the vocal and bass line. In my opinion the rhythmic synth line is an unnecessary distraction.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh when I called it a "pale imitation", but then, Nick Drake is a God!
Maybe you already realized this, but the rhythmic synth is re-creating Nick's acoustic guitar finger-picking.
Drake's version is almost minimalist — as is the case with much of Drake's music. He paints his songs with pale washes of color — there is just enough there to make the song beautiful, and not a hint more. It's a masterpiece of subtlety.
Gonzalez, for the most part, honors this simplicity with the vocal and bass line. In my opinion the rhythmic synth line is an unnecessary distraction.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh when I called it a "pale imitation", but then, Nick Drake is a God!
Maybe you already realized this, but the rhythmic synth is re-creating Nick's acoustic guitar finger-picking.
When the song started I was reminded of the old instrumental Popcorn...
But, it's actually a nice cover.
But, it's actually a nice cover.
blueman group meets nick drake, pleasant enough.
Listen to Celestial Soda Pop - by Ray Lynch.
I swear this is the backdrop to this cover. :))