Prog Music Lounge - Did Floyd make the right decision about Barrett?

Print Page | Close Window

Did Floyd make the right decision about Barrett?

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=101913
Printed Date: April 29 2024 at 11:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Did Floyd make the right decision about Barrett?

Posted By: sublime220
Subject: Did Floyd make the right decision about Barrett?
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 12:50

When Pink Floyd were in the middle of their WYWH sessions, Syd Barrett made an unexpected visit to ask if he can rejoin the band, but was ultimately declined. Was this the right thing to do and how would it have impacted the bands sound in the later albums? Comment your thoughts.

-------------
There is no dark side in the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark...

Replies:

Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:23

First let me say that while I like Pink Floyd and own all the studio albums (except for The Final Cut) , I'm not a huge fan boy.

Regarding Barrett, they could have given him a temporary try to see if he'd fit in again and had anything to offer at that stage. I don't think it would have been a bad idea. They could have always parted if it didn't work out.

-------------
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:33

sublime220 wrote:

When Pink Floyd were in the middle of their WYWH sessions, Syd Barrett made an unexpected visit to ask if he can rejoin the band, but was ultimately declined. Was this the right thing to do and how would it have impacted the bands sound in the later albums? Comment your thoughts.

With regard to WYWH, etc., do you like what you hear the way it sounds now? I do.

From a purely financial perspective, I'm certain the other Floyd guys thought they made the right decision.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: Green Shield Stamp
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:35

From the descriptions of Barrett at the time, it seems that he would have been incapable of contributing anything of worth. He was practically incoherent and any spark of his former creativity had long since dimmed. The state he was in reduced the band to tears. The idea that Barrett could have steered the band towards a new creative peak (which WYWH was anyway) is pure fantasy.

-------------
Haiku

Writing a poem
With seventeen syllables
Is very diffic....

Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:35

As far as I can tell, Syd did not ask if he can rejoin the band. The state of his health made his participation impossible in any form.

The photo (Syd Barrett - Abbey Road, 1975) says it all:

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)

Posted By: sublime220
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:43

^ He did indeed ask but I doubt he could've done anything, like you said, because of his health. I've always prefered Syd-era to Gilmour-era but I don't think he could've contributed in any good way.

-------------
There is no dark side in the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark...

Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:44

sublime220 wrote:

^ He did indeed ask

Where this info is taken from?

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)

Posted By: sublime220
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 13:47

^ Taken from a Syd Barrett biography, entitled Syd Barrett: A Very Irregular Head by Rob Chapman. It's very interesting and would definitely recommend it.

-------------
There is no dark side in the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark...

Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:05

^ Nick Mason in his book "Inside Out" says that he has no idea why Syd came to Abbey Road, he did not talk much and showed the lack of interest when the band played for him the recorded track "Shine On You Crazy Diamond".

So I doubt Rob Chapman is right.

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)

Posted By: sublime220
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:08

^ It is known that he had no interest but what he wanted to do was bring the band back to the old sound. And if this is not right, forgive me. I'm going off of what I've heard.

-------------
There is no dark side in the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark...

Posted By: JD
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:09

Doubtful, I think the distraction of having to worry about whether he was clear and free or might slip back into previous habits may, at the very least, have deterred the rest of the band from giving 100% and thereby diminishing their output for the album sessions. Plus, after 7 years and several albums, the band had pretty much moved on and created their own very successful identity without him.

-------------
Thank you for supporting independently produced music

Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:25

sublime220 wrote:

^ It is known that he had no interest but what he wanted to do was bring the band back to the old sound. And if this is not right, forgive me. I'm going off of what I've heard.

From what I've read about Pink Floyd I have the impression that in 1975 (and earlier) Syd's mind was far away from old or new sound and the music business in general.

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)

Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:37

I think it was the right decision. We have to remember that he was kicked out due to increasing instability. There was little since that time to prove that he had stabilized and become reliable. I do not care for his solo output, even with the attempts by his former bandmates to support his efforts. As mentioned earlier, Pink Floyd had established themselves with a very different style than his own; he had nothing positive to offer them at that time, only plenty of difficulties. Now, if he had some serious work to present the situation would have been very different but that was not the way it was.

-------------
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:43

Did Elvis make the right decision when he made the "Viva Las Vegas" movie? Clown

Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 14:46

Hi,

I also think that by this time, their shows were so mechanical and computerized that it would be way too easy for Syd to not fail quickly and embarass himself and the band.

I am pretty sure I would have also passed on it. By that time, there was no time for nostalgia in what PF was doing! Their shows were not something that half the musicians out there would be interestedin doing, and it got harder all the way to The Wall.

-------------
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Posted By: The Sloth
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 15:24

The guys in Floyd continue to tell the story of an estranged Syd popping up at Abbey Road, how it was deeply troubling, and how some of them even cried. But what you begin to hear after the tenth time you hear it, especially with the aid of that picture, is the guys were depressed that old Syd wasn't sexy anymore.

Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 17:05

Saw the TV documentary on "Floyd"'s "WYWH" and nowhere was it said about the incident that Barrett asked to rejoin the band. As a matter of fact, he wasn't recollected to have said much at all. He stood there practically unrecognizable to stunned former bandmates. The man must have been a little around the bend by that time, so yes, the lads would't have had much desire for him to come back, if at all. By the way, what is your source that stated Barrett wanted back in?

Posted By: Hercules
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 17:12

NotAProghead wrote:

^ Nick Mason in his book "Inside Out" says that he has no idea why Syd came to Abbey Road, he did not talk much and showed the lack of interest when the band played for him the recorded track "Shine On You Crazy Diamond".

So I doubt Rob Chapman is right.

Absolutely correct.

He made no attempt to rejoin and was completely incapable of doing so anyway.

There was no decision to make.

-------------
A TVR is not a car. It's a way of life.

Posted By: Progosopher
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 17:20

SteveG wrote:

Did Elvis make the right decision when he made the "Viva Las Vegas" movie? Clown

To co-star with Ann Margaret? Absolutely!

-------------
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"

Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 17:49

Hercules wrote:

So I doubt Rob Chapman is right.

Absolutely correct.

He made no attempt to rejoin and was completely incapable of doing so anyway.

There was no decision to make.

This.

-------------

Posted By: Aussie-Byrd-Brother
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 18:31

If Syd had remained with the band, and they were determined to only play music with him, then they would have folded very quickly. Even tracks like `Vegetable Man' and `Scream They Last Scream', which are still cool psych tracks, are pretty incoherent, messy and unfocused, so it seems the well of mixing psychedelic with a cool melodic pop tune like `Lucifer Sam', `See Emily Play' and `Arnold Layne' etc had already started to run a little dry.

Sticking with Syd, they'd be not much more than a brief interesting footnote from the psychedelic era only.

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 18:37

Originally posted by Aussie-Byrd-Brother

Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote:

If Syd had remained with the band, and they were determined to only play music with him, then they would have folded very quickly.

That is the untainted truth, amigo!

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: aglasshouse
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 19:21

Aussie-Byrd-Brother wrote:

If Syd had remained with the band, and they were determined to only play music with him, then they would have folded very quickly. Even tracks like `Vegetable Man' and `Scream They Last Scream', which are still cool psych tracks, are pretty incoherent, messy and unfocused, so it seems the well of mixing psychedelic with a cool melodic pop tune like `Lucifer Sam', `See Emily Play' and `Arnold Layne' etc had already started to run a little dry.

Sticking with Syd, they'd be not much more than a brief interesting footnote from the psychedelic era only.

My thoughts exactly.

-------------
http://fryingpanmedia.com

Posted By: sublime220
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 21:17

Well this thread was a mistake Ermm

-------------
There is no dark side in the moon, really... Matter of fact, it's all dark...

Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 21:18

-------------
Crushed like a rose in the riverflow.

Posted By: Dellinger
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 22:07

verslibre wrote:

With regard to WYWH, etc., do you like what you hear the way it sounds now? I do.

From a purely financial perspective, I'm certain the other Floyd guys thought they made the right decision.

Well, I do like what I hear in WYWH... a lot. Actually, that might just as well be my favourite album ever, so it's more likely Syd wouldn't have helped, but rather pulled it down.

Posted By: Guillermo
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 22:55

The record label and / or Syd Barrett`s managers tried to record a third solo studio album from him in 1974. It was not possible. He could not function as a musician again. In fact, his previous two solo albums ("The Madcap Laughs" and "Barrett") were very hard to record (as David Gilmour, Roger Waters and Rick Wright said). Also, in his last days with the band he could not function as a musician. That was the reason Gilmour was asked to join the band. I think that the band took the right decision to survive as a band. And I think that the band became a better band without him. I don`t think that Barrett was asked to join the band in 1975 or that he asked to rejoin the band.

-------------
Avatar: Photo of Solar Eclipse, Mexico City, July 1991. A great experience to see. Maybe once in a lifetime.

Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 08 2015 at 23:59

You have to remove bad juju from a group, or the group becomes tainted and eventually stops becoming a group. One can only believe that managers, record label and other band members knew allowing him back would only lead to the inevitable of removing him yet again.

Similar to Rush asking/removing Rutsey from the group after the debut album, health reasons would not allow them to be a group. Tough life changing decisions, but that is the hard part of business.

Who knows what Pink Floyd would have been like with Syd back, I think the question is how long would they have put up with the situation?

-------------

Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 03:43

This reminds me that Roky Erickson's been dealing with very similar issues relating to mental health and substance abuse as Syd Barrett but is not only still alive, he's been recording and touring on a semi-regular basis since the mid-1970s to the point the 13th Floor Elevators re-united recently. I'm not sure exactly how he's managed that, but with Erickson's story in mind it sounds like the "what if?" story in the OP isn't that far fetched.

-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook

Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 04:32

Floyd became perfect after Barrett left. Thanks Syd though for some early influence.

Journies through burning brains account for little studio work methinks.....

-------------
Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 05:25

However valid your point is, that wasn't the question asked in the OP.

The questions I would ask are: Why did Syd arrive unannounced and uninvited at Abbey Road in 1975? How did he know that the band where there working on their follow-up to Dark Side of the Moon? And why weren't the members of Floyd aware that he was going to turn-up?

I suspect that only Jenner or King can answer those questions because it would be an amazing coincidence if the incident happened purely by chance or on a whim.

-------------
What?

Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 07:19

This is also what I think of that matter. Syd would not only have prevented PF from becoming a progressive rather than psychedelic rock band; he would have drawn the band into the hole he had fallen into. He and his music were, as you say, incoherent, messy and unfocussed, and would have become even more so if he had stayed. If Syd had not been shown the door, Pink Floyd would have folded by about 1970, and now almost forgotten, if not forgotten entirely.

-------------
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."

Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 07:24

I've never heard a member of Floyd say Syd asked to re-join..

I've heard numerous accounts of Barrets visit to Abbey Road, and this was never mentioned.

I agree with WeepingElf. Barrets Floyd would have had a short shelf life. That line up was very much of it's time. IMHO.

-------------
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 08:49

Dean wrote:

However valid your point is, that wasn't the question asked in the OP.

I suspect that only Jenner or King can answer those questions because it would be an amazing coincidence if the incident happened purely by chance or on a whim.

I've always had the feeling that the band would have run like hell if they knew an encounter with Syd was eminent, but that's just a hunch. And I agree that the meeting was probably a set up by Jenner or someone else at Abbey Road that was close to both parties.

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 08:52

Toaster Mantis wrote:

This reminds me that Roky Erickson's been dealing with very similar issues relating to mental health and substance abuse as Syd Barrett but is not only still alive, he's been recording and touring on a semi-regular basis since the mid-1970s to the point the 13th Floor Elevators re-united recently. I'm not sure exactly how he's managed that, but with Erickson's story in mind it sounds like the "what if?" story in the OP isn't that far fetched.

Erickson's "recovery" is indeed a mystery as he's not on any medications a present. At least according to his bio pic from 2007, and updated in 2010, titled You're Gonna Miss Me.

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.

Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 09:14

SteveG wrote:

Dean wrote:

However valid your point is, that wasn't the question asked in the OP.

I suspect that only Jenner or King can answer those questions because it would be an amazing coincidence if the incident happened purely by chance or on a whim.

It was obvious Waters respected and loved Barrett, but it is equally obvious Barrett was long gone. One doesn't write the following lyric without a sense of finality:

Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.

In regards to Barrett being at the WYWH session, I was always under the impression, based on comments from band members, that he had deteriorated so badly they didn't even recognize him (the photo bears that out).

-------------
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 09:19

Unfortunately I've been in the position a few times where one member of the band is preventing the rest of the band from functioning. From what I've read, this was the case with Syd and the rest of Floyd so they had little choice if they wanted to keep PF going. Having said that, I've read that they just "forgot" to collect him on the way to a gig one night so, with the benefit of hindsight, they probably could have handled it better.

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 09:35

The Dark Elf wrote:

SteveG wrote:

Dean wrote:

However valid your point is, that wasn't the question asked in the OP.

I suspect that only Jenner or King can answer those questions because it would be an amazing coincidence if the incident happened purely by chance or on a whim.

It was obvious Waters respected and loved Barrett, but it is equally obvious Barrett was long gone. One doesn't write the following lyric without a sense of finality:

Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.

Respecting someone's past persona is one thing. Dealing with a deteriorating schizophrenic that you helped kick out of the band is another.

Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:03

I remember reading something about David Gilmour in the control room, listening back to the W.Y.W.H. recording, and then saying..."Let's hear it again' and then Barrett said..."Why?..You've already heard it once"

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:16

A good one Todd. That made my day!

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:30

I think it is unfair to be judgemental about a situation that we only have anecdotal information about. The reports of how his exit from the band was handled are indeed unflattering for all concerned, but we were not there to witness it and the reports were conflicting and almost contradictory even just a few years after the event, let alone 45 years later.

The notion they just "forgot" to pick him up on the way to a gig and that signalled his exit is perhaps partly true but maybe it is partly apocryphal too. There were several occasions before then where he was not on stage for a gig, most notably during the (pre-Gilmour) UK tour with Hendrix, Amen Corner, The Nice and The Move where Davy O'List filled in for the "indisposed" Barrett. The idea of recruiting another guitarist was to allow Barrett to remain in the band in his fragile and unpredictable state and Barrett was still in the band after they chose not to pick him up on the way to Southampton, but as a studio member rather than a gigging member. Also, they had chosen Gilmour because he was known to and respected by Barrett to make it easier for him to remain in the band. To me this doesn't seem as callous as it does to others.

From the documented accounts of Barrett's behaviour on stage, in the studio and during their American tour it is conceivable that this period was as hard for Barrett as it was for the other members of the band. It seems that he was as much frustrated that they didn't grasp what he was doing as much as they were frustrated by what he was doing. Such as this quote from Jerry Shirley (drummer):

Shirley explains: "When he plays a song, it's very rare that he plays it the same way each time - any song. And some songs are more off-the-wall than others. When he was with the Floyd, towards the very end, Syd came in once and started playing this tune, and played it completely different. Every chord change just kept going somewhere else and he'd keep yelling (the title), 'Have you got it yet ?' I guess then it was Roger (who kept yelling back, 'No!') who kind of realized, 'Oh, dear.'"

Again, we may never know the whole truth - we don't actually know for certain whether Barrett was kicked out or chose to leave or whether it was suggested that he should go. That Jenner and King went with Barrett and not Floyd suggests that they at least saw a future for Syd and not for Floyd after the break-up. That Waters, Gilmour and Wright were involved in the production of his two solo albums suggests that they wanted to see him succeed as a solo artist... I don't believe they did this out of regret or remorse for "forcing" him out of his own band.

-------------
What?

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:49

^Yes, we may never know the whole truth, but there are universal truths that can be applied to Barrett's case and that is what is being put forward here. Not wild speculation.

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:50

I'll beat you to it: *sigh*

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:55

Your comment didn't warrant a sigh.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 10:57

SteveG wrote:

^Yes, we may never know the whole truth, but there are universal truths that can be applied to Barrett's case and that is what is being put forward here. Not wild speculation.

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Very true Steve.....I enjoy reading all the commentary and regardless of who is posting stuff, I am not taking it as the gospel. It's not like someone here is doing research to write a book about Syd, simply pub talk

-------------

Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 12:27

SteveG wrote:

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music".

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 12:51

chopper wrote:

SteveG wrote:

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music".

My thought precisely.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 12:52

SteveG wrote:

Erickson's "recovery" is indeed a mystery as he's not on any medications a present. At least according to his bio pic from 2007, and updated in 2010, titled You're Gonna Miss Me.

A possible exception is that 13FE didn't tour anywhere as extensively as PF did at the same time, and only in the Southwestern United States where they're from, as a result their members probably weren't subjected to anywhere as much stress. Didn't Syd's mental health first get really bad under the band's first US tour?

I also think Erickson's family are much wealthier than Barrett's, so they had more money to pay for his care.

-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook

Posted By: King Only
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 13:54

If I remember correctly, when Barrett showed up at the WYWH sessions, didn't he want to record some guitar parts?

Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 14:35

^ And some vocals as well. Smile

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:04

chopper wrote:

SteveG wrote:

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music".

I would not. None of Barrett's solo albums are what I would consider to be of "cult artist" status and have probably sold many times platinum over 40 years time, which has as much to do with who he was, as well as what music he actually produced, and that makes his makes his music quite marketable. So that leads us to the question: What then is pop music? (with apologies to Wiki)

The term popular music belongs to any of a number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_genre" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-NewGrovev15p87-1" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-2" rel="nofollow - - music industry . It stands in contrast to both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol1-3" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol2-4" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-analysing_pop_music-5" rel="nofollow - - traditional music , which are typically disseminated academically or orally to smaller, local audiences.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol1-3" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol2-4" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-analysing_pop_music-5" rel="nofollow - - Tin Pan Alley period in the United States.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-NewGrovev15p87-1" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music" rel="nofollow - [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" rel="nofollow - ]}. Popular music is a generic term for music of all ages that appeals to popular tastes,^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-6" rel="nofollow - - musical genre .^{[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" rel="nofollow - ]}}}

As Barrett's music, and Floyd's for that matter, was professionally produced, packaged and marketed to obtain maximum sales, I think it better fits this definition:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Frith" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music#cite_note-Frith_95-96-14" rel="nofollow -

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:20

^Would Syd's solo music "appeal to everyone," though?

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:21

^And who's music appeals to everyone?

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:30

Toaster Mantis wrote:

SteveG wrote:

Erickson's "recovery" is indeed a mystery as he's not on any medications a present. At least according to his bio pic from 2007, and updated in 2010, titled You're Gonna Miss Me.

I know more about Erickson's personal life than Barrett's, as Erickson came from an upper middle class background and his father was a either an architect or a building contractor (I forget which), so he was not incredibly rich but certainly secure, at least financially, when he was a youngster.

As I said, I don't know Syd's background, but I suppose he had gone through the same post war problems that were prevalent in certain parts of Great Britain after the war. I'm very curious now, so I doubt I'll be ignorant of his back ground for much longer.

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:31

^Just going by what Simon Firth wrote.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:33

^Aside from that one sentence, Firth's definition is right on the money.

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 17:37

We would all like to think that prog is high art as many other music forms are. But have we pushed the envelope too far?

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 18:19

SteveG wrote:

^Aside from that one sentence, Firth's definition is right on the money.

That's a pretty integral component of the description, though.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 18:23

^Well, if you want to be specific, he means music that is not used for religious ceremonies or government or state functions. Pop music is accessible to everyone. Santeria music is not.

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 18:33

SteveG wrote:

^Well, if you want to be specific, he means music that is not used for religious ceremonies or government or state functions. Pop music is accessible to everyone. Santeria music is not.

That's called moving the goalposts.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 18:47

verslibre wrote:

That's called moving the goalposts.

No, you're evading the issue.

Singing a song while spilling chicken blood over people is not for everyone. That's something that not considered to be accessible to everyone.

If you want to have a sensible discussion with me, then don't evade the issue.

And frankly, I'm surprised that would come from you.

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 18:54

I'm not evading anything. When you say something like "Santeria music is not for everyone," you're not being serious. At least not from my perspective. That's on the level of saying not everybody has the culinary palate of Andrew Zimmern or not every man with with a smidgen of Native American ancestry will go on his vision quest.

Pop music is meant as music for the masses. That's why I pointed out that one bit of Firth's statement. When you remove that, you can be left with something quite different, like cooking without salt. Syd's music may have been distributed in music stores, but I don't think it has mass appeal. Just my opinion.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 19:02

^Just as serious as you were by basing the crux of Firth's statement on a figure of speech such as "it's music for everyone" and then deriding it as a way to discredit his definition. As soon as you did that I should left the conversation. I know better now. Adios

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 19:04

SteveG wrote:

^Just as serious as you were by basing the crux of Firth's statement on a figure of speech such as "it's music for everyone" and then deriding it as a way to discredit his definition. As soon as you did that I should left the conversation. I know better now. Adios

Au contraire, I pointed that out because it stood out. I wasn't trying to defuse your argument. All you did with your previous post is insinuate it's alright for you to be condescending, but it's not okay for me to be condescending.

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 19:09

^You have what is called selective vision. You focus on something in the definition that stands out to you and that you feel you can challenge, and then disregard the rest of it. I'm not impressed.

Last post from me, so have at it.

Posted By: verslibre
Date Posted: April 09 2015 at 19:12

Thanks for the assessment. You certainly took this personally. Btw, I thought you had left the conversation?

-------------
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_ipg=50&_sop=1&_rdc=1&_ssn=musicosm" rel="nofollow - eBay

Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 01:36

SteveG wrote:

Dean wrote:

However valid your point is, that wasn't the question asked in the OP.

I suspect that only Jenner or King can answer those questions because it would be an amazing coincidence if the incident happened purely by chance or on a whim.

I've always had the feeling that the band would have run like hell if they knew an encounter with Syd was eminent, but that's just a hunch. And I agree that the meeting was probably a set up by Jenner or someone else at Abbey Road that was close to both parties.

I see what you did there

Band at the top of the tree selling shedloads and having just made the breakthrough now bring back ex burnt out member would possibly have been the oddest thing ever. I can't believe this thread has got to so many pages. I guess its a slow news week

Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 02:45

sublime220 wrote:

When Pink Floyd were in the middle of their WYWH sessions, Syd Barrett made an unexpected visit to ask if he can rejoin the band, but was ultimately declined. Was this the right thing to do and how would it have impacted the bands sound in the later albums? Comment your thoughts.

I recall that Mr Townshend wrote at his former blog that no one was kicked Syd Barrett's ass out of the band, but that they fell out creatively.

Also, Pete Townshend said that it was no coincidence that Syd Barrett appeared in the studio (to hear the song that is "dedicated to him") as he was still involved in the financial affairs of the band and see them socially from time to time.

Townshend wrote, as a friend of the band and a personal friend of David Gilmour who contributed to Townshend' successful White City the album and participate at Townshend's solo tours, that many of "Syd Barrett is totally crazy" kind of stories were produced by the band, with Syd as an accomplice.

As Pete Townshend pointed out, the creative differences between the band and Syd Barret was much less interesting for the newspaper than just to write about "how terrible is Syd Barrett's madness induced by LSD", so that it is as Pink Floyd's history was built.

Pete Townshend also said that they all took a lot of LSD at the time when Syd Barret took a lot of LSD, but he once lived with a guy who was the largest producer of LSD in the UK, so it was a great contribution to the legend of Syd Barrett's "terrible madness" due to LSD.

Re fat Syd at the pic from the studio, that weight can be induced by heavy doses of anti-psychotic drugs, but much more often by just eating too much food; it is true that Syd Barret spend some time in a private house for "lost souls", but no formal therapy program was there because Syd Barrett's "schizophrenia" has never been diagnosed.

Taking all this into account, Pete Townshend pointed out that Syd Barrett had quite a normal life away from the scene that it was no longer interesting to him. He enjoyed in a lots of nice food and not have to think about his "rock star figure", he was riding his bike, he has friends, this and that; he actually lived an ordinary life; in secure actually, because he received his royalty checks.

One could say that it was not normal for a rock star to live to the end of life with his mother. However, so many ordinary guys does not have to be a sign of madness but it just happens to live with their mums, and as Mr Townshend have already pointed out, Syd was already too far from the lifestyle of the British rock aristocracy. Syd Barrett was an ordinary guy when he went to Abbey Road to hear the song "dedicated to him".

Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 04:17

From what I know of this sad tale, the best thing that floyd did was to leave him alone in later years and to help ensure his PRS royalties got passed through.

Shame some of these door knocking "fans" and hack journos could not have shown the same respect.

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 05:05

sublime220 wrote:

When Pink Floyd were in the middle of their WYWH sessions, Syd Barrett made an unexpected visit to ask if he can rejoin the band, but was ultimately declined. Was this the right thing to do and how would it have impacted the bands sound in the later albums? Comment your thoughts.

uh, can you expand, please?

personally, I never heard that this was Syd's goal

I don't think he was in a state (though I wouldn't know of this since I wasn't there) to ask for that... Most likely, if that was the intent, he was driven to it by someone else (but who?).

As for Floyd making the right choice, would Echoes, AHM, DSOTM, Animals or even WYWH (despite Syd being the inspiration) have been recorded at all.

Don't think it's a question of right or wrong, here... there was a situation to deal with, and it was probably the only realistic exit possible. They didn't give up on him immediately either.
there are Syd admirers claiming the band did him wrong, but but would've a sound Syd no have done the same if it had happened to Mason, back in 66??

Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 06:06

SteveG wrote:

chopper wrote:

SteveG wrote:

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music".

The term popular music belongs to any of a number of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_genre" rel="nofollow - musical genres "having wide appeal"^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-NewGrovev15p87-1" rel="nofollow - [1]}^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-2" rel="nofollow - [2]} and typically distributed to large audiences through the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry" rel="nofollow - music industry . It stands in contrast to both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music" rel="nofollow - art music ^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol1-3" rel="nofollow - [3]}^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol2-4" rel="nofollow - [4]}^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-analysing_pop_music-5" rel="nofollow - [5]} and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_music" rel="nofollow - traditional music , which are typically disseminated academically or orally to smaller, local audiences.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol1-3" rel="nofollow - [3]}^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-arnold_vol2-4" rel="nofollow - [4]}^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-analysing_pop_music-5" rel="nofollow - [5]} The original application of the term is to music of the 1880s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_Pan_Alley" rel="nofollow - Tin Pan Alley period in the United States.^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-NewGrovev15p87-1" rel="nofollow - [1]} Although popular music sometimes is known as " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music" rel="nofollow - pop music ", the two terms are not interchangeable^{[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" rel="nofollow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_music#cite_note-6" rel="nofollow - [6]} whereas pop music usually refers to a specific http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_genre" rel="nofollow - musical genre .^{[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" rel="nofollow - citation needed ]}

As Barrett's music, and Floyd's for that matter, was professionally produced, packaged and marketed to obtain maximum sales, I think it better fits this definition:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Frith" rel="nofollow - Simon Frith pop music is produced "as a matter of enterprise not art", is "designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste". It is "not driven by any significant ambition except profit and commercial reward ... and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative". It is, "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below ... Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged".^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music#cite_note-Frith_95-96-14" rel="nofollow - [14]}

Dueling pistols at dawn. I'll even let you shoot first.

All I meant was, the average "pop" fan (i.e. someone who buys stuff in the top 40) would listen to a Syd Barrett album and probably say something like "wtf is this?".

Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 06:06

^ I read (think it was in the NME Book of Rock) that Barrett turned up at the WYWH sessions and said he was "ready to do his bit" whatever that might have meant. Wasn't he also no longer the original 'pretty' Syd by 1975? They probably didn't want a fat, bald lead singer/guitarist with a penchant for playing one chord at that stage in their career, sad though the situation was. If he was able to produce decent material perhaps he could have written for the band, but again that seems an unlikely scenario.

-------------
"And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!"

"He's up the pub"

Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 06:13

SteveG wrote:

chopper wrote:

SteveG wrote:

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music".

I would not. None of Barrett's solo albums are what I would consider to be of "cult artist" status and have probably sold many times platinum over 40 years time,

I can't find any figures for his albums sales offhand, but only his first solo album charted (at number 40 in the UK) so that doesn't immediately sound like "many times platinum".

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 06:16

Cactus Choir wrote:

^ I read (think it was in the NME Book of Rock) that Barrett turned up at the WYWH sessions and said he was "ready to do his bit" whatever that might have meant. Wasn't he also no longer the original 'pretty' Syd by 1975? They probably didn't want a fat, bald lead singer/guitarist with a penchant for playing one chord at that stage in their career, sad though the situation was. If he was able to produce decent material perhaps he could have written for the band, but again that seems an unlikely scenario.

Well, NME is the worse fact-bending publication that ever existed.

Maybe Syd thought he was still in the band after a "coma" of five years (was he even aware 5 years had gone by?), but if he had made any moves towards being reintegrated, we'd probably have heard it all from the Barrett-lovers and the post-barrett Floyd-haters

highly unlikely

Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 08:03

^The 1977 NME Book of Rock is actually quite a good read and even got me into some new prog bands - Greenslade, Colosseum, Argent. From memory it is quite accurate with facts and was edited by Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden with thankfully little involvement from the usual cast of NME pseuds at that time - Morley, Burchill, Parsons, Shaar Murray et al.

-------------
"And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!"

"He's up the pub"

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 08:50

I think that for all his inevitable short lived artistic ripeness, engendered by a precipitous mental fragility, Barrett made the right decision about Floyd. We never had to suffer the pitiful spectacle of his erstwhile colleagues boycott Israel with Floyd albums still mysteriously available in their stores....together with anyone culpable in providing Bob Geldof with a mainstream cinema role re The Wall is clearly harboring a war crime against better judgement.

-------------

Posted By: King Only
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 09:18

ExittheLemming wrote:

...anyone culpable in providing Bob Geldof with a mainstream cinema role re The Wall is clearly harboring a war crime against better judgement.

I don't think that using Bob Geldof for The Wall movie was Pink Floyd's choice. Roger Waters wanted to play the role himself but either the producer or the director insisted on using someone else instead of Waters.

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 09:40

King Only wrote:

ExittheLemming wrote:

...anyone culpable in providing Bob Geldof with a mainstream cinema role re The Wall is clearly harboring a war crime against better judgement.

So presumably, despite holding the rights to the movie, da Floyd, with all the bargaining cards in their favour, acceded to the view that notwithstanding Geldof's complete inappropriateness for the role, he was the best candidate?

-------------

Posted By: AZF
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 11:47

ExittheLemming wrote:

King Only wrote:

ExittheLemming wrote:

...anyone culpable in providing Bob Geldof with a mainstream cinema role re The Wall is clearly harboring a war crime against better judgement.

The only way "The Wall" could have worked as a film with Roger Waters in the lead would have been as a comedy. Unintentional comedy, but come on! One of my favourite scenes in the film is when Bob trashes his hotel room, I just can't see Roger having the same anger.

He'd more likely be taking photographs of every single item in the room and spending money to get those images printed onto toilet roll! LOL

Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 12:06

Oh, I don't know. Gandalf wasn't all that bad in the lead role. He was at the time a mildly talented, detached rock star in his own right which is all the role really called for. The problem was with Alan Barker's vision for The Wall which generally blew as a whole (and he is a 'hole).

Posted By: WeepingElf
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 12:15

While this seems to show, at first glance, that Syd suffered from the delusion that he was still in the band, he may just have made a joke about that, being amazed about what a big thing his former band had become. It would have been very much in his character. Of course, given the state he was in, as you said, he had no place in the band as it was in 1975, and that was clear to everyone. Certainly, the band was nostalgic about what he had been before he screwed up, but it was obvious that he no longer was what he used to be in '67. Sometimes, well, things change, and won't return.

-------------
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

"What does Elvish rock music sound like?" - "Yes."

Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 13:46

The Dark Elf wrote:

SteveG wrote:

Dean wrote:

However valid your point is, that wasn't the question asked in the OP.

I suspect that only Jenner or King can answer those questions because it would be an amazing coincidence if the incident happened purely by chance or on a whim.

It was obvious Waters respected and loved Barrett, but it is equally obvious Barrett was long gone. One doesn't write the following lyric without a sense of finality:

Now there's a look in your eyes, like black holes in the sky.

So I know that Shine on You Crazy Diamond was written mainly about Syd. Were the lyrics written before or after the encounter?

By the accounts I've read that also agree with what's been said here, the rest of Pink Floyd played the song for Syd when he made his visit, and he was disinterested. If the song was already written, then such a lyric would not have been based on the encounter.

-------------
Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here .

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 15:08

chopper wrote:

SteveG wrote:

chopper wrote:

SteveG wrote:

And don't forget, Barrett didn't cure cancer, he only produced marketable pop music.

Having heard his solo albums, I would have to dispute the use of the phrase "marketable pop music".

Fair enough, Chopper. I was only rehashing some of the age old hyperbole regarding this issue (in questionable taste, on reflection). But to be honest, dumbed down acoustic based (mostly) folk rock with whimsical lyrics doesn't strike me as something that would give a seventies (and this is key) pop fan a WTF reaction. It's not as if Syd's singing about a satanic mass with vitriol, but I could be jaded.

Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 10 2015 at 19:48

I have a Yugoslav version of great The illustrated NME Encyclopedia of Rock.
The book, as an archaeological artifact as well, perfectly shows the overall view of its time, due to which today's self-styled "historians" and revisionists do not like it.

Syd Barrett's appearance in the studio during mixing of the Shine On You Crazy Diamond is actually mentioned in that separated entry of Syd Barrett, though it says that this is "the most latest story"(about Syd Barrett). So the writer does not claim that to be so really happened, but tells us "the latest story." It should be noted that the encyclopedia was written in 1976

Posted By: Cactus Choir
Date Posted: April 11 2015 at 06:06

Svetonio wrote:

Part of the fascination with the book is that it was written at such a transitional time. The entries for the Punk bands appeared to have been added at the last minute and they didn't have time to re-write those for Floyd, Zeppelin etc to make them as critical as they would have been a few months later. I didn't agree with a lot of their judgments but it was well written and useful as a reference work. I particularly remember the description of ELP as "an ego-inflated dinosaur" which at the time I thought sounded pretty cool! LOL

-------------
"And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!"

"He's up the pub"

Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 11 2015 at 06:50

Cactus Choir wrote:

Svetonio wrote:

Yes, I remember that especially ELP, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones were often called "dinosaur bands" in the rock press in the middle and second half of seventies. Though I remember also that the term represented something *very big* more than *extinguished*. And yes, it was cool at that time! Well, their gigs at the stadiums, the way how all of it was staged and the pics as those really have encouraged usage of that term as well...

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 11 2015 at 09:14

SteveG wrote:

But to be honest, dumbed down acoustic based (mostly) folk rock with whimsical lyrics doesn't strike me as something that would give a seventies (and this is key) pop fna a WTF reaction. It's not as if Syd's singing about a satanic mass with vitriol, but I could be jaded.

Casting the anticipated reaction of our hypothetical 70's pop fan to one side, do you honestly equate Syd's solo output as 'dumbed down folk rock with whimsical lyrics?' I know it's all a matter of subjective taste when all said and done but for me, there is material on both The Madcap Laughs and Barrett that ranks as high as the psychedelic pop masterpieces of See Emily Play, Arnold Layne, The Scarecrow, Bike, Lucifer Sam and Astronomy Domine etc that Syd created within Floyd. Yes, the solo stuff is a bit sloppy, ragged and disjointed but given his fragile mental health that's hardly surprising. Does an unplugged fender telecaster used for his rhythm guitar parts make this material strictly 'acoustic folk' i.e. ain't you guilty of confusing (misheard) texture with style here?

-------------

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 15:55

ExittheLemming wrote:

Casting the anticipated reaction of our hypothetical 70's pop fan to one side, do you honestly equate Syd's solo output as 'dumbed down folk rock with whimsical lyrics?' I know it's all a matter of subjective taste when all said and done but for me, there is material on both The Madcap Laughs and Barrett that ranks as high as the psychedelic pop masterpieces of See Emily Play, Arnold Layne, The Scarecrow, Bike, Lucifer Sam and Astronomy Domine etc that Syd created within Floyd. Yes, the solo stuff is a bit sloppy, ragged and disjointed but given his fragile mental health that's hardly surprising. Does an unplugged fender telecaster used for his rhythm guitar parts make this material strictly 'acoustic folk' i.e. ain't you guilty of confusing (misheard) texture with style here?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not, as this music falls under the dopey (pun intended) Psychedelic Rock sub genre of Acid Folk, which is not predicated on the type of instrumentation used, but on it's musical style. And frankly, there were those few who have done it better, like Pearls Before Swine, Alexander "Skip" Spence and Michael Chapman with his 1970 album Fully Qualified Survivor.

As ever, I remain the anarchist.

And just for the record, an electric guitar that has unpowered magnetic pickups when it's played, and has to be recorded with a microphone, is in reality an acoustic guitar. There is no electronic amplification of it's sound, so the recorded sound you hear is not amplified sound but acoustic sound.

Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 16:08

Svetonio wrote:

Cactus Choir wrote:

Svetonio wrote:

Yes, I remember that especially ELP, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones were often called "dinosaur bands" in the rock press in the middle and second half of seventies. Though I remember also that the term represented something *very big* more than *extinguished*. And yes, it was cool at that time! Well, their gigs at the stadiums, the way how all of it was staged and the pics as those really have encouraged usage of that term as well...

I'm afraid you're a little off the mark, Svetonio. "Dinosaur" as a description was applied to those bands that were archaic and out of touch with what was practically universally heralded as punk's passion for what was in vogue and timely back around 1976-1977. In another words, if a band at the time was a dinosaur, it was obsolete and therefore on the way out. By the way, can't stand punk but still love my dinosaurs!

Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 16:25

^ Our memories are different. I remember that "dinousaur band" at that time represent something "huge" more than "way out".

And I remember that I have always been amazed why The Who never was called "dinousaur band", although they were playing more gigs at the staduims than e.g. ELP.

When I was attended as a kid aswell to The Rolling Stones gig in Zagreb, in June 1976, the band was already called a dinosaur band", but believe me, they were a very current band at that time.

Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 16:51

Rednight wrote:

Svetonio wrote:

Cactus Choir wrote:

Svetonio wrote:

It's too primitive. More citations, please. Tongue

-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 18:17

Svetonio wrote:

^ Our memories are different. I remember that "dinousaur band" at that time represent something "huge" more than "way out".

And I remember that I have always been amazed why The Who never was called "dinousaur band", although they were playing more gigs at the staduims than e.g. ELP.

No wonder you see things arse-backwards to everyone else around here. LOL

Back in the 1970's people still believed dinosaurs were green, slow, cold-bloodied and most of all, completely extinct. Fortunately paleontologist have the ability to change their view-point as more evidence is discovered so we don't have to carry on believing in their misconceptions.

-------------
What?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 19:35

-------------
What?

Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: April 14 2015 at 19:43

-------------
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.

Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 15 2015 at 01:02

As stated earlier in this thread, Syd Barrett chose to live a quiet life as an ordinary man until the end of his life..

Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: April 15 2015 at 02:26

SteveG wrote:

As ever, I remain the anarchist.

I just don't hear even a sliver of folk vocabulary or its referential materials in the harmonic progressions or melodies that Syd created. To paraphrase Louis Armstrong, if it's folk music related then it is so by virtue of not being sung by a horse. Confused

Is there a hyphen in anal retentive?

Your oft trumpeted 'last ever post before you return to the recording industry' (from fading memory) has clearly been subject to revision for the foreseeable future? Wink

-------------

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 15 2015 at 05:23

^I'm with the rodent on this one... I don't see how Madcap or Barrett (or Opel) are acid folk (aka psych folk) albums.

-------------
What?

Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: April 15 2015 at 07:22

I am not sure what annoys me most....the exploitative non-story of Roger Barrett who tried to quietly live out his days in Cambridge or the fact a despicable rag such as Daily Express is quoted here.

Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: April 15 2015 at 07:39

NutterAlert wrote:

I am not sure what annoys me most....the exploitative non-story of Roger Barrett who tried to quietly live out his days in Cambridge or the fact a despicable rag such as Daily Express is quoted here.

Actually, I posted that "Daily Express" due to beautiful pic of Syd Barrett who is riding his bike. The picture speaks more than 1000 words. However, I'm just curious what you find so wrong in that text on the pic?

Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 15 2015 at 07:52

Svetonio wrote:

Actually, I posted that "Daily Express" due to beautiful pic of Syd Barret who is riding his bike. The picture speaks more than 1000 words. However, I'm just curious what you find so wrong in that text on the pic?

Perhaps it would be more appropriate if you can explain how a paparazzi photograph (i.e., one taken without the subject's consent) published in the tabloid press supports your observation "Syd Barrett chose to live a quiet life as an ordinary man until the end of his life..". Especially when the photograph, the text, its publication and subsequent reproduction on the internet including re-posting here is clearly an invasion of the privacy that he desired.

A picture that speaks a 1000 words is meaningless if all those words are merely 1000 repetitions of a single word: exploitation.

-------------
What?