9 responses to “Tim Buckley.”

  1. nicholasjamesb

    from the Monkees show in 1968 – the cool thing is that on the Rhino Tim Buckley anthology , they actually include this performance which is way better than the studio recording

  2. handstil

    There is no better voice, I swear.

    I’ve been listening to Starsailor this week because it is essential summer music for me. I am, however, haunted by the information that my mom used to listen to it while baked on bong rips in san fransisco with her first real boyfriend who is now a dentist who never married because my mom is evil and married my dad while the guy was in NAM. He still waits for her *sniff*

    1. nicholasjamesb

      I saw Tim in 1972 at the Hollywood bowl with an all now dead line-up , Frank Zappa The Doors ( without Jimbo) and Tim – he was great though

  3. fg

    huh, i first heard this by the cocteau twins and never realized it was a cover. i like it when that happens.

  4. ortho_bob

    Have this as well then!

  5. threepunchstuff

    Oh shit, it’s Tim Buckley’s son’s dad!!

  6. poncif

    waaaoow. thank you! *runs off to buy it*

  7. maeve66

    Thanks for these, and . A friend likes Tim Buckley’s later experimental stuff a great deal, but I’d never seen his early stuff or an image of him. Hott. And, like , I thought “Dolphins” was written by Billy Bragg, as the only place I’d ever heard it before was on a tape cassette of Don’t Try this at Home.

  8. steph99

    hi! *waves*
    so, i’ve been thinking about this a lot lately… what baffles me about this lovely, old-timey music is that the musicians are just so gosh darned earnest. I mean that in a good way, or at least a neutral, totally not bad way. I hesitate to speak in the genre of “oh, these kids today”, but I do think pop and orbiting subcultures are way more masked, coded, ironic, and/or cynical, and it’s harder to pull of something that’s just pretty. Conversely, I don’t mean that in a bad way necessarily, it just seems like pop music and sentiments that inspire it, have a layer of abstraction between them now that isn’t evident in a performance like this. It might be that stuff was just so new in the 60s and 70s, what with that ginormous critical mass of youth constantly inventing and discovering, and the newness (necessarily) engendered simplicity. I heard some fashionista say something similar about clothes. Lordy, I think this was on Queer Eye…yeah, one of the dear twinks was saying that back in the (1950s?) day, it was ok to wear something utterly pretty and elegant, but now if you try to pull that off, it looks like satire. Rather, if you want to show that your haute fashion is Serious Business, it needs to be a little edgy, damaged, fucked up, as thought beauty is now a thing that one has *despite*, not because. (Enter the part in the discussion where additional complexity and acknowledgment of painful pasts ushers in a much wider definition of beauty, a big boon to the self-esteem of non-blond, non-skinny teenage girls everywhere. see also: riot grrrl, also an honest and simple genre that was innovative at the time) Is this the part where I blame Nixon for an entire nation’s simultaneous loss of innocence?? Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

    In summary, thanks for posting.

Leave a Reply