Er, not quite. Where's Sid?

Do you mean Syd?

Not quite the original Pink Floyd, but The Australian Pink Floyd (a tribute band) are playing at this years Rock and Blues Show (near Ripley in Derbyshire) on the saturday night, from all accounts they are indiscernable from the originals, even down to having a lot of the PF crew. ie. sound and lighting technicians.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Do you mean Syd?

Yes, I meant Syd

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Er, not quite. Where's Sid?

As an intolerable pedant myself, I can quite understand what you're saying. But in reality Syd Barrett only appeared on the first album, part of the second album and a few early singles. Whereas Gilmore, Waters, Wright and Mason was the line-up that had all the world-wide success and sold untold millions of albums, including Dark Side Of The Moon. Therefore, if not strictly speaking the actual ORIGINAL line-up, this is certainly the classic and most widely recognised incarnation of Pink Floyd.

Otherwise you might as well say that John, Paul, George and Pete Best is the original line-up of the Beatles.

Originally posted by mojoworking
As an intolerable pedant myself, I can quite understand what you're saying. But in reality Syd Barrett only appeared on the first album, part of the second album and a few early singles. Whereas Gilmore, Waters, Wright and Mason was the line-up that had all the world-wide success and sold untold millions of albums, including Dark Side Of The Moon. Therefore, if not strictly speaking the actual ORIGINAL line-up, this is certainly the classic and most widely recognised incarnation of Pink Floyd.

Otherwise you might as well say that John, Paul, George and Pete Best is the original line-up of the Beatles.

Syd was no Pete Best. He played a seminal role in their success in the early years and wrote some marvellous songs, which are still associated with PF. OK, only one complete album - but what an album. Piper at the Gates of Dawn - a true classic.

I was being a little facetious about the line up. As Syd's current condition, or indeed whereabouts, are the subject of mystery to most of us, I think there is a serious doubt as to whether he could now play an instrument or even sing in tune.

Along with Peter Green, Syd is probably the best example of a spiked rock artist. He was a shooting star, probably ruined by drugs and possibly his own psychological problems. I have a post PF album by him (the first after he left PF) and its not very good.

It would be wonderful if Syd did turn up and did well - but like Julia I'm dreaming here.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Syd was no Pete Best. He played a seminal role in their success in the early years and wrote some marvellous songs, which are still associated with PF. OK, only one complete album - but what an album. Piper at the Gates of Dawn - a true classic.

I was being a little facetious about the line up. As Syd's current condition, or indeed whereabouts, are the subject of mystery to most of us, I think there is a serious doubt as to whether he could now play an instrument or even sing in tune.

Along with Peter Green, Syd is probably the best example of a spiked rock artist. He was a shooting star, probably ruined by drugs and possibly his own psychological problems. I have a post PF album by him (the first after he left PF) and its not very good.

It would be wonderful if Syd did turn up and did well - but like Julia I'm dreaming here.

I take your point about Pete Best. I used the comparison because the Fabs did start their recording career with Pete on drums.

Despite the best efforts of Dave Gilmore, the 2 post-PF LPs by Syd (The Madcap Laughs and Barrett) were, as you say, not much cop. I guess that proves that drugs are not always the way to creativity (for further proof, see also every Peter Green album since 1970).

While I'm a huge fan of PF, I'm also one of those who believes that their later work is much better than Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. In retrospect, while Piper is rightly regarded as a psychedelic classic, it is crude in its execution and as such is very much of its time. It is musically naive and IMO only holds up today as a curio from the Summer Of Love.

By comparison, an album like Wish You Were Here, for example, exhibits much higher levels of craftsmanship and sound quality, while losing none of the mind-altering sonic qualities of Piper.

Lord C,
I don't think there is much chance of 'Syd' Barrett attending. There is probably more chance of Lord Lucan riding in on Shergar. Roger Barrett, to give him his real name, lives in the family home at Cambridge, which he moved to after his mother died. His nephew, Ian Barrett, claimed that Atlantic Records offered Syd £75,000 in April 1992 to record his poetry, acoustic strumming or anything he had in mind. The record company even gave him the chance to record in his Cambridge living room, with musicians of their choosing. Apparently , Brian Eno and Jimmy Page had made previous attempts to coax him out of 'retirement'. Nothing was forthcoming.

In Julian Palacios, 'Lost in the Woods' [1998], Ian Barrett is quoted as saying how much more content his uncle is now, busy painting and living a quiet life. He was apparently 'exploring different kinds of painting' and 'writing a book, purely for his own enjoyment, about the history of art'. Ian Barrett claimed that Syd is 'touched by all the concern' expressed by fans who regularly turn up at his doorstep, but added that he 'simply isn't interested in going back over a time in his life that precipitated his breakdown and retreat from society'. Barrett's nephew begged people to leave his uncle alone, in peace and happiness; 'The one thing I'd really like to say to people wanting to visit Roger ['Syd'] and see how he is, is please DON'T!!!'

It looks like being Waters, Wright, Gilmore and Mason then...

Originally posted by timo
Lord C,
I don't think there is much chance of 'Syd' Barrett attending. There is probably more chance of Lord Lucan riding in on Shergar. Roger Barrett, to give him his real name, lives in the family home at Cambridge, which he moved to after his mother died. His nephew, Ian Barrett, claimed that Atlantic Records offered Syd £75,000 in April 1992 to record his poetry, acoustic strumming or anything he had in mind. The record company even gave him the chance to record in his Cambridge living room, with musicians of their choosing. Apparently , Brian Eno and Jimmy Page had made previous attempts to coax him out of 'retirement'. Nothing was forthcoming.

In Julian Palacios, 'Lost in the Woods' [1998], Ian Barrett is quoted as saying how much more content his uncle is now, busy painting and living a quiet life. He was apparently 'exploring different kinds of painting' and 'writing a book, purely for his own enjoyment, about the history of art'. Ian Barrett claimed that Syd is 'touched by all the concern' expressed by fans who regularly turn up at his doorstep, but added that he 'simply isn't interested in going back over a time in his life that precipitated his breakdown and retreat from society'. Barrett's nephew begged people to leave his uncle alone, in peace and happiness; 'The one thing I'd really like to say to people wanting to visit Roger ['Syd'] and see how he is, is please DON'T!!!'

It looks like being Waters, Wright, Gilmore and Mason then...

Thanks Timo for another of your wonderfully informative and stimulating posts. I agree, lets leave Syd in peace. I recently read an excellent biography of Rimbaud, another shooting star. Apparently he showed no interest in his poetry after his brief period of creativity and indeed would become annoyed if anyone even mentioned it. The people who knew him in his later life didn't even know he had ever written any poetry.

Mojoworking, yes, I agree with you about PF's later works. I just have a soft spot for Syd and Piper - as to some extent did the original members of PF themselves. I can't imagine the Beatles writing a eulogy to Pete Best along the lines of Shine On You Crazy Diamond. Well, the crazy diamond shone and as a creative force will probably shine no more - but he's still remembered with great fondness.

Lord C,
Thankyou, dear heart. Re comparisons between Best and Barrett. Best, to my knowledge wasn't much of a writer. Barrett, on the other hand, wrote most of 'Piper', and most of the early singles. One could also point to Barrett's original guitar sound too, around which the celebrated early Floyd sound revolved. Best was merely a mediocre drummer, replaced by another mediocre drummer.

You correctly point to 'Shine On' [essentially a slow blues progression] as evidence of the Floyd's affection and respect for their old bandmate. Barrett is mentioned too, with affection, in Mason's recent 'coffee table' book on the Floyd. Unfortunately, I can't remember the title, or who bought it me for Xmas!

Someone referred to Barrett's post-Floyd work as being not up to scratch. Can't remember who. This is something I disagree with. Tracks such as 'Octopus', 'No Use Trying', 'Gigolo Aunt' are really rather good, in my view. Certainly, some tracks should not have been included on the two solo albums because they clearly reveal a distressed mind, and Barrett sounds so vulnerable. Nevertheless, some, like the three I mention are wonderfully English, eccentric songs of great merit. I cannot speak for anyone else, but the man's voice still sends a shiver down my spine. Although, in truth, I don't play his cds very often.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there Timo, when you mention Syd's 'wonderfully English, eccentric songs'. Added to this his plaintive voice, and (at the time) weird guitar sounds which matched the strange lyrics perfectly and I think we are more than half way to understanding Syd's appeal and distinctive qualities.

Incidentally, Syd's all too brief career raises the interesting issue of the effects of mind altering substances on creativity. At the time Huxley's Doors of Perception was being widely read and its central premise - that drugs could enable creative artists to see further and deeper - was widely accepted in artistic circles, not least in the field of rock music. In fact, the reverse was almost certainly the case - a point made by Dr. Johnson in a famous debate with Boswell about the effects of opium and drink on creativity.

Good points there, Lord C, re the effects of drugs upon creativity. I agree entirely, they constrain rather than enable the development of creativity. I have often wondered too if Barrett was maliciously 'spiked'. I class tampering with anything another person is about to consume, be it drugs, food or drink as an assault on the person. I suspect someone did this to 'Syd' . It might explain his refusal to discuss the past, referred to by his nephew, Ian Barrett. Then again, if we are to believe the tales told by Floyd members, he might well have needed no help from others in this respect. What lay behind Barrett's 'breakdown' [and Ian Barrett has hinted that it was far worse than the public can imagine] has never been made clear. However, it does sound rather like drug-induced schizophrenia. If so, the poor man will have suffered terribly. I hope he is as content now as his nephew claims. Let him have his peaceful, quiet life. We have his lovely songs about bikes, gnomes, scarecrows, and octopuses to listen to, and that is enough. Now he is Roger Barrett. 'Syd' died around 1974, when he submitted a rambling, incoherent tape to EMI. They couldn't possibly release such obviously 'damaged' material, and that was effectively the end of the legend.

Re the reunited Floyd; is it too much to expect the Waters, Gilmour, Wright and Mason line-up to have come up with new material? Probably. Wouldn't a 'new' studio album from them be a huge seller?

Originally posted by timo
You correctly point to 'Shine On' [essentially a slow blues progression] as evidence of the Floyd's affection and respect for their old bandmate.

Sorry timo, I must take you to task here. While Shine On You Crazy Diamond does use a pentatonic scale, it does not follow any recognised blues format or progression (ie 12 bar, 8 bar etc).

It is slow however, I'll grant you that ;)

Mojoworking,
I do not read music very well. Nor do I know very much about blues, if truthful. I saw the track, 'Shine On' described as , 'a blues progression' in Mojo magazine. Is the monthly music magazine named after your good self?!

Originally posted by timo
I cannot speak for anyone else, but the man's voice still sends a shiver down my spine.
Well, heres a coincidence - at the moment of reading, I am listening to Syd's 'Madcap laughs' and to be quite honest,there is a quality from the music that sends a tingles down my back, too.
Re 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn' - Syd Barrett was Pink Floyd :)
Maybe they should have had the good grace to re name the band after 'Saucerful of secrets'...........

Draggletail,
Glad you feel the same way! What is so great about Syd's material, aside from the imagery, quirkiness etc, is his unmistakeable middle class English voice. At a time when many singers were aping the speech patterns of American artists, Syd sounds so wonderfully, resonantly English. There is a slightly aloof, distracted quality to his vocals which I really like too. I can't understand why 'Gigolo Aunt' was not released as a single [at least to my knowledge it wasn't]. That song in particular is a great 'sing-a-long' number, and I cannot resist joining in whenever I play it. He sounds really happy on that track, and the whole thing makes me smile from ear to ear. So do many other of his songs like 'Octopus', 'Baby Lemonade' etc.

There are those who are incredulous at his enduring appeal. Some, like a friend of mine, are amazed that he is remembered for so little- just over three album's worth of material [Piper, one track on Saucerful, two solos-Madcap Laughs and Barrett, and leftovers on a compilation]. However, Syd seems to gain new fans with every generation, so there MUST be some special quality there. If in doubt, consult one's spine!

Ps, forgot to acknowledge that Barrett was on [and wrote most of] early singles too- See Emily Play, Apples and Oranges etc.

Originally posted by timo
There are those who are incredulous at his enduring appeal. Some, like a friend of mine, are amazed that he is remembered for so little- just over three album's worth of material [Piper, one track on Saucerful, two solos-Madcap Laughs and Barrett, and leftovers on a compilation]. However, Syd seems to gain new fans with every generation, so there MUST be some special quality there. If in doubt, consult one's spine!

timo, without taking anything away from Syd's obvious appeal, I feel there is another factor at work here. If a rock star dies (or, in this case, becomes a basket case) at an early age, then all sorts of weird stuff starts to happen in the collective public consciousness. The Kurt Cobain industry is a perfect example. Since his death the guy has practically been canonised, simply on the strength of one decent album. If he'd lived I suspect Nirvana would have quietly faded away, as most of the other Seattle bands have done.

Another example is Peter Green. His work with John Mayall and the early Fleetwood Mac was the stuff of legend. Like Syd he went crazy in 1970 and has since released several "comeback" albums, none of which come even close to his pre-breakdown work. Yet people still insist he's a "genius" or a "legend" today. In reality he's just a sad, burnt-out drug casualty whose talent is a mere shadow of its former glory.

Nick Drake is a similar case. Had he not taken his own life after three deeply introspective LPs, I'd wager he'd have gone the same way as, say, John Martyn - recording a stream of competent, if unremarkable, albums well into his dotage, each one less essential than the last. Instead, an entire generation now identifies with the young, moody, good looking folk singer with the voice like molten honey.

With Syd, we remember him as he was in 1967: young, vibrant, talented. If he'd stayed with us, who's to say he wouldn't have become fat, bald and complacent, treading water and turning out mediocre albums (David Gilmore, anyone?). While I appreciate that "The Madcap Laughs" and "Barrett" were recorded under difficult circumstances while Syd was on the brink of madness, they still weren't much good and only serve to underline the way Syd's mental health was heading. Therein lies their sole appeal, I suspect.

I suggest that the reason why these tragic rock stars are lauded so much is because without exception, they all checked out while at their peak. If they'd been allowed to continue their careers into middle age decline (again, like David Gilmore) I would guess that few of them would have been elevated to iconic status.

And, rock heresy of rock heresies - dare I say it? - the same fate would probably have awaited Jimi Hendrix. In fact, his very last album got indifferent reviews in the music press at the time and was referred to by one critic as being mediocre. All that soon changed however.

For rock stars, dying young can be a good career move.

Mojo and Lord C,
I disagree with you re the quality of most of the songs on Barrett's two solo albums. I think many of them are of merit, and I have always enjoyed them. There is a fragile beauty to much of his work, and as previously said, a slightly aloof 'Englishness' about Barrett's whole style which I can relate to.

Mojo, I must admit that you have a point re the very good examples of Peter Green and Nick Drake. We will never know exactly how Barrett would have developed. However, there are a few clues which tend to support your rather perceptive suspicions. Shortly after the second album, Barrett formed the short-lived band, Stars. They never recorded, or at least never officially released material. However, they did a few gigs, and at least one was billed as a 'comeback' for Barrett. Some years ago, I heard a bootleg of the gig they did at Cambridge Corn Exchange. It was spectacularly awful.