Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon Ma 
I listened to Pink Moon and thought it was good, I think I prefer his first two albums though, I can see why he made this album, there's a simplicity to it but the other two seemed more atmospheric to me.
|
His circumstances had changed a lot by the time of Pink Moon-- he was in bad shape, depressed (as in massively unhappy-- I have no idea if he had a clinical condition), and had failed to hit big (one reason Pink Moon is virtually a solo guitar album is that no one thought it worth the $$ to pay for the kind of musical accompaniment he'd had on the first two). You can hear it in the lyrics, the singing, the playing (compare the felicity of his fingerwork on the first two albums to the dark simplicity of most of Pink Moon). So it's not hard to understand preferring the first two (I do).
Pink Moon is an album that I always have trouble with: on the one hand, it's devastating, and completely moving.
On the other hand, it's one of those artifacts that perpetuates that false idea that rock music (and its attendant subgenres) is always some kind of autobiography, which is frankly insulting to its practitioners. A novelist is expected to create and inhabit characters that reach beyond themselves, but for some reason the popular musician gets locked into this idea that everything's some kind of confessional. Sometimes (like here) they are, but far more often they're not, and not intended to be read that way.
I think that, as I age, I find that I even more prefer the balance of open-hearted wonder and astonishing prescience that the first two albums exhibit. Pink Moon reminds me of the cheap pseudo-nihilism that so many of us played with during our adolescence, and it's an uncomfortable reminder, particularly since, for Drake, there was nothing "cheap" or "pseudo" about it at all.