Print Page | Close Window

Why was Syd Barrett a Genius???!

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=26018
Printed Date: April 23 2024 at 03:59
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Why was Syd Barrett a Genius???!
Posted By: The Lost Chord
Subject: Why was Syd Barrett a Genius???!
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:26
This I dont get...I like early floyd alot and i enjoy syds solo albums, but why do people constantly refer to him as a genius?
 
Why, was it because he slipped into the shadows and all for so long and went insane to the world?  It seems everyone who does this is labeled a genius, I think the word is being miss-used
 
You know whos a genius?  Probably Roger Waters or David Gilmour over Syd, I feel they achieved and did a hell of alot more than Syd ever did in the music world, and thats not a reference to popularity but musical talent!
 
Genius?  Good song-writer, major drug problems, dying young...this does not consititude genius in my book.
 
I love your early work syd, rest in peace, but your no genius my friend!


-------------
"Only the sun knew why"



Replies:
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:30
People have every right to consider him a genius, since it is their opinion.  I personally don't consider him a musical genius (although by that I mean no disrespect)... but to be honest there really aren't that many musicians I would place on that calibur.  Syd was, however, a great musician and an innovator so it shouldn't be that hard to see why others might consider him to be a genius.

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


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:33
ok, i suppose, but doesnt that constitude maybe hundreds of musicians as genius?
 
I agree, it is hard for me to put people at that calibur...but maybe some people dont see it as a high and mighty stamp?


-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: CaptainWafflos
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:33
Syd Barrett was sixty years old. He didn't die young~

It's a hell of a lot better than people considering Kurt Cobain to be a musical genius, at least. Syd at least had an undeniable amount of musical talent.


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:36
i consider 60 to be a young age to die at, certainly...perhaps its a matter of opinion, i dont know.
 
But i guess i understand, people are entitled to their opinion on whos a genius and who isnt, im just questions "why??".
 
I feel a few musicians were genius level of musical talent, but syds not really close for me...all personal.


-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:40
    Great innovators often get the genius label. if you look at what he did, at the time he was doing it, it could well be warranted. I don't really know. Now, he may have been 60 when he passed, but his illness took him away long before that. Sometimes it is the thought of what might have been that builds these people up.
    

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: Harry Hood
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:46

Yeah, if his mind hadn't gone, and he had continued with Floyd, imagine what he could have accomplished. His songwriting would have gotten more mature, his guitar playing would have improved, but we'd still get daring experimentation like we heard on Piper. We could have had masterpieces greater than Wish You Were Here and Dark Side Of The Moon. You never know.



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


Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:48
Syd was a genius because he was the underground counterpart to The Beatles and other British invasion bands of the time.

He was writing music at age 13, a lot of which eventually ended up on his solo releases. And it's good music.

He wasn't just another offshoot of the 'psychedelic rock' movement; he was at the forefront of it and never got any recognition.

Plus he always had a way of putting everything under an innocent light. He wasn't afraid of experimentation, even if it meant selling fewer records. He could take the traditional love song, make it un-sappy, and put it into a context that made it magical again.

A genius for sure.


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 19:51
good deal, thanks for the info, i guess it really is a supportable idea

-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 20:18
Being a genius or not, is not a matter of opinion.


Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 20:23
I think Syd stop writing songs before it could really develop, like Waters and Gilmour, the amount of stuff he wrote and the level of it was phenominal, he he wrote songs when he was asked to on the word go. My late grandmother suffered from Schizophrenia, and was highly creaqtive, it seem to me people when a certain level of insanity have a certain level of brillance, myu grandmother could make up amazing and novel poems at the word go like Syd could write songs, I am absolutely certain that if she could play a musical instrument she could write to the magnitiude of Syd. Look at Spike Milliagan another person that suffered from severe mental illness, no one could write comedy at the same level as he could, as they say genius and madness are often combined.

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



  


Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 20:48
It just reminded me I have a friend who suffers from bipolar disorder and boy is he intellegent!, I mean he has an amazing mind, multitalented speak several languages, know detailed history of the world and political climate, is a fantastic guitarist and pianoist, he is frighteningly intellegent he has a photographic memory, I wrote this just to confirm my previous post about brilliance and sickness.

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



  


Posted By: moodyxadi
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 20:50
the rerlationship between mental illness and talent doesn't exist. We know a lot of people from the past and the present that have suffered diverse genres of mental illness and could achieve a lot of brilliance in their works, but there's a giant mountain of people that were mentally ill too and never could do anything. Caligula knew that Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar were epileptics; so he started to simulate epileptic crisis to be as considered as those men were.
there's a lot of schizoprenics in the world, getting visions, etc., but only some of them are capable of persuade other persons that their visions are true and have deeper meanings. The great founders of the three monotheistic religions probably suffered from some kind of mental illness in any level, according to their own words (or the words that others atributted to them); but this doesn't mean that my sister, who is a "medium", could create a powerful cult per se just because she can "see" things. a lot of other atributtes are necessary to this: charisma, rethoric power, etc.
 
Anyway, Syd was a genius IMO, but not because he suffered any kind of mental disease. Sorry for the terrible english.


-------------
Bach, Ma, Bros, Déia, Dante.


Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 21:01
MoodyXadi, I suggest you be careful when mentioning the founders of religion and mental illness, it will inevitably upset some people and cause a mudslinging contest.
I think though that a lot of people with bipolar disorder etc have a unique view on the world that many can't,see, but your probably write I was just speculating I'm no psychologist/psychiatrist.
Although not a mental illness but rather a mental disorder Autism and Aspergers Syndrome does make many genius's because of the way they process information differently from people who don't have, watch the movie Rain man with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman, It explains some of it. I think Einstein and Mozart had it.


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



  


Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 21:37
Originally posted by moodyxadi moodyxadi wrote:

the rerlationship between mental illness and talent doesn't exist. We know a lot of people from the past and the present that have suffered diverse genres of mental illness and could achieve a lot of brilliance in their works, but there's a giant mountain of people that were mentally ill too and never could do anything. Caligula knew that Alexander the Great and Julius Cesar were epileptics; so he started to simulate epileptic crisis to be as considered as those men were.
there's a lot of schizoprenics in the world, getting visions, etc., but only some of them are capable of persuade other persons that their visions are true and have deeper meanings. The great founders of the three monotheistic religions probably suffered from some kind of mental illness in any level, according to their own words (or the words that others atributted to them); but this doesn't mean that my sister, who is a "medium", could create a powerful cult per se just because she can "see" things. a lot of other atributtes are necessary to this: charisma, rethoric power, etc.

 

Anyway, Syd was a genius IMO, but not because he suffered any kind of mental disease. Sorry for the terrible english.


I don't think you can say it doesn't exist because the majority of sufferers show no special talent. I think there is a evidence for a relationship in certain cases. I don't see it as extreme mental disorders breeding unusual talent, but unusually talented people sometimes manifesting some mental instability. Could it be that a mind functioning on such a high level, could be a hard thing to cope with? I have actually given this a lot of thought over the years. The mind is an amazing thing. It is capable of wonderous creation, and devastating destruction. Especially to the one using it.
    

-------------
a.k.a. H.T.

http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 22:02
Originally posted by Cheesecakemouse Cheesecakemouse wrote:

MoodyXadi, I suggest you be careful when mentioning the founders of religion and mental illness, it will inevitably upset some people and cause a mudslinging contest.
I think though that a lot of people with bipolar disorder etc have a unique view on the world that many can't,see, but your probably write I was just speculating I'm no psychologist/psychiatrist.
Although not a mental illness but rather a mental disorder Autism and Aspergers Syndrome does make many genius's because of the way they process information differently from people who don't have, watch the movie Rain man with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman, It explains some of it. I think Einstein and Mozart had it.
 
There's really very little evidence that Einstein had the disorder; and most of that existing evidence was exagerrated in an attempt to show autistic kids that they could be geniuses too. I'm not personally familar with the Mozart claim.
 
But to keep this on topic I share LostChord's sentiments. I don't see anything particularly good in Syd's writing. I find it childish to a fault. Even his influence is greatly up to debate. I think the genius lable is really overstepping it.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: kingofbizzare
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 22:16
I think Syd is considered a genius due to the amount of influence he had on others. His music was an inspiration for a lot of prog music and his playing style was influential to many late 60s/early 70s guitarists as well as to many of the founding bands of Punk.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/kingofbizzare/?chartstyle=asimpleblue5">


Posted By: theblastocyst
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 22:22
Disregarding songs such as The Gnome, or Bike, his lyrics were very original and the way he used his lyrics in both melody and rhythm were very well crafted. With that being said, he was (as we all know) the founder, and "inventor" of what would become one of Englands biggest bands of all time. Waters and Gilmour constantly say in interviews that Syd's music influenced them more then anything in there production of Saucerful.And that his music led them to formulate there own styles and progress to a new direction for there music. So basically what they're saying is that if Syd didn't make the music on Piper, they may have not made the exact music in which we hear on all their other albums. So you may only consider their post-piper music to be "genius" and some may consider both to be genius. But if you look at one of the main definitions of genius in the dictionary, it'll probably say that genius means "strong creative power" and I think that all the members of this band possesed "genius"


Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 22:23
Originally posted by The Lost Chord The Lost Chord wrote:

 
Genius?  Good song-writer, major drug problems, dying young...this does not consititude genius in my book.



What do drug problems have to do with being a genius? I'd agree about the drug thing you had said role model or hero, but drugs really have no reference here. Also, are you saying people who die young have no chance of being called a genius? And you just HAD to start a thread on the day the guy dies.


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


Posted By: kebjourman
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 23:31
he was so innovative
 
if you bring about something new that wasnt there before, and if its good, then your a genieus
 


Posted By: Prog-man
Date Posted: July 11 2006 at 23:40
 
YES.
GENIUS...


-------------
Arriving somewhere but not here


Posted By: cowbell1
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 00:10
He did do "Wish you were here"


Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 00:30
Originally posted by cowbell1 cowbell1 wrote:

He did do "Wish you were here"
.........You know what? Three ellipses simply isn't enough. Here's some more: .......................................
 
You have a valid question, TLC, but you could have waited a few days to ask it.


-------------
"Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine."
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber.


Posted By: Asyte2c00
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 00:33
Syd Barret was an innovator, a relic of his time, without him Pink Floyd would have never been what they are today.  He had profound influence upon the band's future output, even though he departed the band after their first album.  (he might have appeared on "Jugband Blues" on Saucerful of Secrets not sure though). 
 
As for a Musical and Lyrical Genius, in the truest sense of the word, it has to be Ian Curtis of Joy Division.  I have never heard more honest music than Joy Division's during JD's short yet poignant career.  Keeeping in mind, that honest music does not necessarily meaning flawless musicianship and great intrument interplay, soaring melodies, and amazing solos. 
 
 


Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 00:36
Quote I think Einstein and Mozart had it.

They had synaesthesia, which is the natural crossing of the senses. And I'm pretty sure Syd had it too, and it was wrongly diagnosed as schizophrenia, so he never received the correct treatment.

This is why many of his childhood works had heavy 'psychedelic' influences without actually being acid-inspired.


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 01:12
 


-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 01:21
Originally posted by The Lost Chord The Lost Chord wrote:

Sorry if this is offending anyone by making this topic, but I think it is good to discuss this, and talk about syd and what he really did and why he would be a genius.  Sorry im not one to mindlessly mourn people when they die, i just dont see the big deal.
 
Certainly, though, the human race is innately selfish and will take Syd Barretts death to their own liking and try the best for themselves to benefit.
 
Sadly, no one will ackowledge what Syd would like done.  Perhaps Syd would like having a thread like this started.
 
I certainly dont want people wasting time after im gone.  its selfishness at its most natural.
 
Are you sad for Syd or just for the sake of feeling sad? hmf
 
Syd wasnt a genius in my opinion, and I just wanted to see why people would refer to him as such...and I found my answer.
 
So mourning a man's death is selfish.
 
Ignoring a man's death and focusing on one's own life is empathetic?
 
I don't follow.


-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 01:23
i dont want to start an argument its a personal belief im sorry!
 
dont worry about it, its nothing, i dont want to offend anyone here
 
back to subject...i am not saying you have to be old to be a legend, thats a misinterpretation, im saying it was sad that he died at 60 that is a young age to die, im just saying usually people are labeled legends when they dont do much after a big bang and kind of fade away like syd did.
 
say, lee mavers of The La's, considered a legend, a master, a genius...only released one album!  this is why, though, if he releases more he risks his reputation


-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: The Ryan
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 01:33
Originally posted by The Lost Chord The Lost Chord wrote:

This I dont get...I like early floyd alot and i enjoy syds solo albums, but why do people constantly refer to him as a genius?
 
Why, was it because he slipped into the shadows and all for so long and went insane to the world?  It seems everyone who does this is labeled a genius, I think the word is being miss-used
 
You know whos a genius?  Probably Roger Waters or David Gilmour over Syd, I feel they achieved and did a hell of alot more than Syd ever did in the music world, and thats not a reference to popularity but musical talent!
 
Genius?  Good song-writer, major drug problems, dying young...this does not consititude genius in my book.
 
I love your early work syd, rest in peace, but your no genius my friend!
Dude didn't he just die? Give it a week, damn.


Posted By: Baggiesfaninuk
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 01:47
An excellent question TLC and about time it was asked in my opinion.

I believe the Syd Barrett legacy far too thin to enable anyone to form an opinion on this objectively. Therefore it all comes down to how each individual regards what Syd created and indeed, what he has now left behind.

True - I like his compositions on Piper, Madcap, Barrett and Opel. But, many of his songs are quirky, verging on the banal, his guitar work was extremely limited and he relied more on the support of others rather than his individual technique to arrive at the sound many love on his work. He might have turned out to be a genius - who knows? But it is my opinion that Syd "died" many years ago and the romance, mysticism and legend borne by rumour, speculation and of course, "Wish You Were Here", has simply added to the myth that his prowess was far beyond anything I have heard on record in support of popular opinion.

Without Syd, Floyd would not have evolved into what they are now. But it was more due to his lack of creativity, rather than his capability that Floyd became one of the biggest bands on the planet. His looks defined him as a natural frontman - but little else did so - ironic therefore, that at their peak, Floyd reigned supreme without one.

The word genius, is regularly used where it should not be. That he was at the forefront of the underground culture - one where it was the 'scene' that was prevalent and not simply the music - speaks volumes. Long, drawn out improvisations based around sound effects and atonal, unstructured music, heard in isolation, is very difficult to listen too, unless supported by the psychedelic backdrops, primitive videos and of course, the drug-induced trips of the time. Syd wasn't responsible for all of that, merely part of it. And unfortunately, it eventually destroyed what little creative confidence he had.

Zappa was a genius in my opinion. He has the legacy to back up the claim whether one enjoys his music or not. I love some but not all. But there is no denying he left behind a vast repository of diverse musical creativity and his talent in both composition and execution are there for everyone to admire.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Syd. Not a popular opinion judging by this thread, but an honest and realistic one.

RIP Syd.




-------------
My father was a beekeeper before me; his father was a beekeeper. I want to follow in their footsteps. And their footsteps were like this. (Runs screaming) "AAAAAAAH! I'm covered in beeeeees!" - Izzard


Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 01:56
Originally posted by Baggiesfaninuk Baggiesfaninuk wrote:


Without Syd, Floyd would not have evolved into what they are now. But it was more due to his lack of creativity, rather than his capability that Floyd became one of the biggest bands on the planet. His looks defined him as a natural frontman - but little else did so - ironic therefore, that at their peak, Floyd reigned supreme without one.
Lack of creativity? Are you serious? You are free to dislike his music, but he was definately creative. I defy you to find me something from 1967 that sounds like PATGOD (other than the general '60s) And what are you talking about Floyd not having a frontman? Waters was their frontman.


Quote RIP Syd.
That's nice. Adding an RIP doesn't excuse you from spending a long time bashing everything he ever did the day after he died.


-------------
"Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine."
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber.


Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:01

some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Posted By: Legoman
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:01
He basically made the psychedelic music genre.  Genius enough for me.


Posted By: Tony Fisher
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:13
Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Well said! I agree with every word.


Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:17
By the way guys, he actually died on the 7th.  The news was only released yesterday.


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


Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:18
You guys are a bunch of jerks. :( I bet somebody would complain if I went and made fun of Jon Anderson the day after his death is announced, but when it's Syd the crazy man...
 
Yes, I do think the situations are comparable if you're a Yes fan.
 
Good point Gecko, although it's basically the same situation as if he had died today since nobody knew about it until today. (Well except for him and his family, of course. I think I'm not being all that coherent.)


-------------
"Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine."
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber.


Posted By: Baggiesfaninuk
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:19
Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

Originally posted by Baggiesfaninuk Baggiesfaninuk wrote:


Without Syd, Floyd would not have evolved into what they are now. But it was more due to his lack of creativity, rather than his capability that Floyd became one of the biggest bands on the planet. His looks defined him as a natural frontman - but little else did so - ironic therefore, that at their peak, Floyd reigned supreme without one.
Lack of creativity? Are you serious? You are free to dislike his music, but he was definately creative. I defy you to find me something from 1967 that sounds like PATGOD (other than the general '60s) And what are you talking about Floyd not having a frontman? Waters was their frontman.


Quote RIP Syd.
That's nice. Adding an RIP doesn't excuse you from spending a long time bashing everything he ever did the day after he died.


Grow up for God's sake. You are reading what you want to and not taking my whole post in context. Your choice I guess.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether this debate is better to have when someone is alive and can see what is said - as happens all the time here - I don't see you worrying about that.

I never said I disliked Syd's output; I enjoy PATGOD. But the question was asked regrding his status as a 'genius'. Period. That is the context of my response.

As for Water's being the frontman? Greatest influence - maybe. Frontman on stage? Not when I saw them live on many occasions.

Don't take such offence, just because someone disagrees with your opinion.


-------------
My father was a beekeeper before me; his father was a beekeeper. I want to follow in their footsteps. And their footsteps were like this. (Runs screaming) "AAAAAAAH! I'm covered in beeeeees!" - Izzard


Posted By: Ghandi 2
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:26

It's not about whether or not the person being discussed can read what is written; it's about having a sense of propriety.

Maybe I am reading your post the wrong way, but overall your post seems very harsh to me.



-------------
"Never forget that the human race with technology is like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine."
Sleepytime Gorilla Museum: Because in their hearts, everyone secretly loves the Unabomber.


Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 02:53
Originally posted by DeepPhreeze DeepPhreeze wrote:

[quote]I think Einstein and Mozart had it.

They had synaesthesia, which is the natural crossing of the senses. And I'm pretty sure Syd had it too, and it was wrongly diagnosed as schizophrenia, so he never received the correct treatment.

I was meaning Einstein and Mozart had Aspergers Syndrome not Schitzophrenia. Some thing Barett had it; I doubt it, because he a real extrovert in his youth, usually people with Asp. Syn. are extremely introverted growing up etc.

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



  


Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 03:07
Originally posted by CaptainWafflos CaptainWafflos wrote:

Syd Barrett was sixty years old. He didn't die young~

It's a hell of a lot better than people considering Kurt Cobain to be a musical genius, at least. Syd at least had an undeniable amount of musical talent.
 
Syd was a big loss. Greg Allman and Betts  died young and they were very good musicians.
 
And don't forget he founded Pink Floyd.


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


Posted By: aprusso
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 03:18
well, he invented psychedelic rock, he invented a new lifestyle for British people, he laid down the musical ideas for 30 years of Pink Floyd music, he is the most imitated songwriter by hundreds of indie bands as of 2006
who would be a genius then? the singer of opeth?


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 03:39
He was an icon, and an innovator. His contribution to music at that time, and beyond was considerable, but he was not a genius IMO.

I'm not sure what criteria other people define the term 'genius' by, but for me it implies a 'talent' way above and beyond what is expected, or considered the 'benchmark' in a particular field. What Syd achieved had not been done before, but it wasn't something that would have been un-obtainable to many other musicians and writers at the time.

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


Posted By: CrazyDiamond
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 05:34

If you can start something huge as pink Floyd were, are and would be, then call me, 'cos you're a genius.

 
If you manage to produce the same glory of Pink Floyd through the years, then feel happy, 'cos you are a genius.
 


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


Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 05:52
^ Now dont get me wrong, I'm a fan of Floyd, but times change. Floyd happened at a time when there was a huge gap in the market for something so experimental and original. They appeared at a stage in the evolution of pop music that was exciting and allowed for that sort of innovation. They had the ideas, and the guts to do it, and thats fantastic, but it's not genius. It's good luck.

A phenomenon like Floyd could not happen these days. The industry doesn't want it, and lets face it, whetever can be done with a electric guitar and a keyboard in rock music HAS now been done. All rock music now is, at least to some extent, re-hashing of an established formula. A Syd Barret character nowadys would be dismissed as 'pretentious'

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 06:32
Originally posted by cowbell1 cowbell1 wrote:

He did do "Wish you were here"
No, he didn't.


Posted By: edible_buddha
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 06:51
"Its awfully considerate of you to think of me here/
And Im most obliged for you for making it clear/
That Im not here..."
 
Syd knew where he was going with his experiments and appeared to understand that he may not return (for all I know, he didnt).  Now his body has followed in the footsteps his mind took so long ago with LSD as his trail marker. 
 
The thing I admire about his work was that he gave us a few glimpses of his journey while he was still walking it (of his free will).  Not that it was overly musical by any streatch, but he allowed us the understanding of the emotions that it took to explore with him.  Few musicians were so 'personable' to have done that (dont know if that was the right word), and for that I have great respect for him.
 
However, I would have to say 'no' to genius status.
 


-------------
I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long.


Posted By: edible_buddha
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 06:53
Originally posted by sweprogfan sweprogfan wrote:

Originally posted by cowbell1 cowbell1 wrote:

He did do "Wish you were here"
No, he didn't.
From what i understand, he was the inspiration of "Shine on you crazy diamond", and probably was the major influence of WYWH.  Apparently, he even made a surprise visit to the studio while Floyd were recording the album.  But im sure he didnt play.
 


-------------
I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long.


Posted By: Bern
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 07:04
Originally posted by Tony Fisher Tony Fisher wrote:

Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Well said! I agree with every word.


Exactly my thoughts too.


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

RIP in bossa nova heaven.


Posted By: jonirob
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 07:35
I had the great fortune to see Syd play live with The Floyd when I was a teenager at The Empire Ballroom in Blackpool in 1967. His stage presence and playing were electrifying and that concert still sticks in my mind as one of the most memorable I have ever seen. I have seen The Floyd on 3 further occasions, but they were never quite the same. Yes, to me he was a Genius!

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

Red Prog


Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 07:42
Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Originally posted by Tony Fisher Tony Fisher wrote:

Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..Pioneers are often looked upon as geniuses. Piper... defined the sound of psychedelia in '67!
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...Fine, he was sixty when he died anyway.
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...So?
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...Thats beside the point. He got sick, and he was different.   
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius... It sure doesn't prove he wasn't either, and is an artist being a bohemian problem for you? I think he wrote incredible, unique songs like no one had done before.  
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...Name one album pre- Piper... sounding close to this experimental and psychedelic (certainly not Revolver). Early Floyd was a big influence on Krautrock, Canterbury and the psychedelic elements of prog in general.
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...
A lot of all our music idols of that era took drugs.

Well said! I agree with every word.


Exactly my thoughts too.


The members of the Pink Floyd you all love so much doesn't seem to have any problem acknowledging that we lost a genious to mental illness. Why do you have this unsympathetic need to dissmiss everything he made? His death is sad news for many of us.  






-------------
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me


Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 08:39
Interesting to see how UK broadsheet newspapers have extensive coverage of his demise. Both Telegraph and Independent have half page obituaries. The Guardian has 4 pages in its G2 section dedicated to Barrett, mostly written by Nick Kent.
 
He died apparently of cancer.


-------------
Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005


Posted By: Royalist
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 09:08
Originally posted by wrote:

Being a genius or not, is not a matter of opinion.

At maths.


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


Posted By: leirbagaze
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 10:41
YES, 
 
SYD BARRETT WAS A GENIUS.
 
WELL, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO A DICTIONARY
 
A genius is a person with distinguished mental abilities. This can manifest either as a foremost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellect - intellect , or as an outstanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity - creative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent - talent .
 
Creativity (or creativeness) is a mental process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations between existing ideas or concepts.
 
 


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 10:56
I dont understand why some people here are saying it is an insult, and we are making fun of syd right after he died?  Thats complete BULL.
 
We are probably respecting him even more when it comes down to it.  I have full respect for what he did, but I wont make up something that isnt true for me.
 
And I started this thread because it didnt quite make sense, and I am glad people agree.
 
Syd Barrett is dead, he died on the 7th, ofcourse this is sad news, but it doesnt mean you cant have an intellectual conversation about whether or not the man was a genius!
 
Stop carrying on about how this is insulting to his death, because saying THAT is INSULTING!
 
I do not believe he was a genius, and I think it is ridiculous how many people do because I feel it is only at his DEATH that most believe this.  The same will come for many when their day comes...
 
No time is the right time to start this discussion in some of your eyes because you, for some reason, see it as an insult and a making fun.
 
Why can't you let everyone in the world pay their own respect to Syd?  Perhaps someone out there hated the guy for a damn good reason, so be it.
 
I say RIP to a man who many have described very well here, and that is all...


-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 11:02
Originally posted by jonirob jonirob wrote:

I had the great fortune to see Syd play live with The Floyd when I was a teenager at The Empire Ballroom in Blackpool in 1967. His stage presence and playing were electrifying and that concert still sticks in my mind as one of the most memorable I have ever seen. I have seen The Floyd on 3 further occasions, but they were never quite the same. Yes, to me he was a Genius!
 
I would seriously kill a squirrel for that experience!
 
And yes, in my eyes, Syd was a genius. But genius is in the eyes of the beholder my friends.
 
Why do I think he's a genius-his music carries a certain resonance that I hear that speaks to my brain in a certain way-that no one else does.


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


Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 11:32
@ The Lost Chord- You do realize that the whole reason this thread was started was from hearing people saying he was great and a genius in his death thread. Don't you realize that when someone dies people are MUCH more likely to say something kinder (perhaps overly nice) than they would if the person was still alive? It's just to be REVERENT to the fact that the person is dead.

Also I think the thread title has alot to do with people thinking you're insulting him, with the many question marks and even an exclamation point, like you are offended that people are calling him a genius. It would have been much better to have something like "Was Syd Barret a Genius?" rather than "Why was Syd Barret a Genius???!"

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


Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 11:35
hahah alright you got me, i dont mean to be offending anyone here, syd or progarchives folks, i guess it just happens sometimes...sorry

-------------
"Only the sun knew why"


Posted By: MajesterX
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 11:47
Originally posted by The Lost Chord The Lost Chord wrote:

hahah alright you got me, i dont mean to be offending anyone here, syd or progarchives folks, i guess it just happens sometimes...sorry


Don't worry about it. Thumbs Up


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


Posted By: dralan
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 12:00
 I think Syd was a genius. In the early days he WAS the Floyd. He was truly an innovater in space rock and progressive music and there would be no Pink Floyd without him. All their later successes were a continuation of his original vision. I think one of his main achievements was to take the psycedelic experience and translate that into music. Then he could turn around and write seemingly simple childrens songs with very deep and clever lyrics.


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 12:10
According to Merriam-Webster, a "genius" is:
 
1 a plural genii : an attendant spirit of a person or place b plural usually genii : a person who influences another for good or bad
2 : a strong leaning or inclination : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/penchant - PENCHANT
3 a : a peculiar, distinctive, or identifying character or spirit b : the associations and traditions of a place c : a personification or embodiment especially of a quality or condition
4 plural usually genii : http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/spirit - SPIRIT , http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jinni - JINNI
5 plural usually geniuses a : a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude <had a genius for getting along with boys -- Mary Ross> b : extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity c : a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority; especially : a person with a very high IQ
As for "mental illness," the old adage is quite true: "there is a fine line between genius and madness" (or "genius and insanity").
 
Anyway, genius or not, here is The New York Times' obituary, for what it's worth.  Perhaps it will stimulate new paths of discussion:
 
Syd Barrett, a Founder of Pink Floyd, Dies at 60
By http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jon_pareles/index.html?inline=nyt-per - JON PARELES

Syd Barrett, the erratically brilliant songwriter and singer who created the psychedelic rock of Pink Floyd only to leave the band in 1968 with mental problems, died on July 7 at his home in Cambridgeshire, England. He was 60.

His death was confirmed by a spokesman for his former band, Doug Wright of LD Communications, who did not give a cause. Mr. Barrett had long suffered from diabetes.

A statement from Mr. Wright said: “The band are very naturally upset and sad to hear of Syd Barrett’s death. Syd was the guiding light of the early band lineup and leaves a legacy which continues to inspire.”

With Pink Floyd, and on two haunting solo albums, Mr. Barrett became a touchstone for experimental pop musicians. He was also renowned both as an LSD casualty and as a symbol of how close creativity can be to madness.

Mr. Barrett wrote most of the songs on Pink Floyd’s debut album, “The Piper at the Gates of Dawn.” In Mr. Barrett’s songs like “Astronomy Domine,” whimsy and wordplay merged with a playful sense of structure and sound. “Let’s try it another way/You’ll lose your mind and play,” he wrote in “See Emily Play.”

He also helped to conceive the band’s performances as spectacles. “We have only just started to scrape the surface of effects and ideas of lights and music combined,” Mr. Barrett told the trade newspaper Melody Maker in 1967.

But under the pressures of rock stardom and after frequent use of LSD, Mr. Barrett had a breakdown in the late 1960’s and spent most of his life as a recluse. Pink Floyd, with its bassist, Roger Waters, taking over as songwriter, went on to become a multimillion-selling arena-rock band in the 1970’s. Pink Floyd sang about Mr. Barrett in one of its hits, “Shine On You Crazy Diamond.”

Roger Keith Barrett, nicknamed Syd as a teenager, was born in Cambridge, England, on Jan. 6, 1946. He played the piano as a child and then took up the guitar, joining his first band at 16.

Pink Floyd began with boyhood friendships. Mr. Barrett attended the same elementary school as Mr. Waters. David Gilmour, who eventually replaced him as Pink Floyd’s guitarist, was another teenage friend.

In 1965, while Mr. Barrett studied painting and fine art at Camberwell art school in South London, Mr. Waters, the drummer Nick Mason and the keyboardist Rick Wright were studying architecture at Regent Street Polytechnic. They recruited Mr. Barrett to join their blues band. Mr. Barrett combined the first names of two bluesmen, Pink Anderson and Floyd Council, to name the group Pink Floyd.

Blues-rock soon receded in Pink Floyd’s music, giving way to songs that built on the http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/b/beatles_the/index.html?inline=nyt-org - Beatles ’ pop innovations and the expanded perceptions of the 1960’s. The music followed Mr. Barrett’s lyrics through meter changes, improbable interludes and the otherworldly sound effects the band was generating onstage at London clubs like UFO, a bastion of psychedelia. Mr. Barrett used an echo machine and slid a Zippo lighter along his guitar strings to create one of Pink Floyd’s sonic signatures.

In early 1967, Pink Floyd signed to EMI Records. Its first two singles — “Arnold Layne,” a fond song about a transvestite, and “See Emily Play” — reached the British Top 20. Pink Floyd made its debut album at Abbey Road Studios, as the Beatles worked on “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” next door. “The Piper at the Gates of Dawn” was a definitive psychedelic album. Its songs mixed childlike wonder with portents of disaster, and its music veered off on exuberant tangents before returning to pop choruses.

Onstage, the music was more free-form and anarchic. Band members have said Mr. Barrett was unstable even before he began extensive drug use, and he developed a reputation for odd behavior. For one show, he tried to slick down his hair with a combination of Brylcreem and crushed Mandrax tranquilizer pills, which were melted by stage lights and started to ooze down his face as he played. Playing the Fillmore West on Pink Floyd’s 1967 American tour, Mr. Barrett stood staring into space and detuning the strings on his guitar. The band cut short its American tour.

During 1967, Mr. Barrett was taking LSD every day, and that often left him incapable of performing. Mr. Gilmour joined Pink Floyd late in 1967, and by the spring of 1968, Mr. Barrett was out of the band. He wrote the song that closes “A Saucerful of Secrets,” Pink Floyd’s second album: “Jugband Blues,” which includes a http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/salvation_army/index.html?inline=nyt-org - Salvation Army band playing on one section. “It’s awfully considerate of you to think of me here,” he sang, “and I’m most obliged to you for making it clear/that I’m not here.”

Without Mr. Barrett, Pink Floyd’s music changed. Whimsy gave way to majestic anthems on best-selling albums like “Dark Side of the Moon,” a concept album about insanity.

Mr. Barrett was treated in psychiatric hospitals and quietly began recording songs and fragments of songs. Some were solo recordings with an acoustic guitar that other musicians were brought in to accompany; others were recorded with fellow musicians in the studio, or with Mr. Barrett working over finished backup tracks. The irregular structures of Mr. Barrett’s songs frustrated studio musicians and various producers, but Mr. Waters and Mr. Gilmour eventually took over production and completed “The Madcap Laughs,” released in January 1970.

Mr. Gilmour and Mr. Barrett returned to the studio to make “Barrett,” released in November 1970. On both albums, Mr. Barrett sounds fragile but oddly serene, following his rhymes whether they lead to nonsense or revelation.

Mr. Barrett appeared on BBC Radio and played one brief show at the London Olympia in 1970 (accompanied by Mr. Gilmour), walking offstage after four songs. In 1972, he made a last attempt to lead a band, Stars, which played a half-dozen shows in England before disbanding. Recording sessions in 1974 were unproductive.

Since then, Mr. Barrett lived quietly, spending some of his time painting. He showed up at unlikely moments: he appeared unannounced, for instance, at a 1975 Pink Floyd session as the band recorded “Shine On, You Crazy Diamond.” A British magazine reported that he was institutionalized for two years in the early 1980’s. Outtakes from his solo albums were released in 1988 as “Opel,” and a boxed set collecting all three solo albums, “Crazy Diamond,” was released in 1993. He learned he had Type II diabetes in 1998.

Mr. Barrett’s survivors include a brother, Alan, and a sister, Rosemary.

For someone with such a brief career, Mr. Barrett has never been forgotten. Indie-rockers have long tried to emulate his twisted craftsmanship, paying tribute in songs like Television Personalities’ “I Know Where Syd Barrett Lives.” Sir http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=112918&inline=nyt-per - Tom Stoppard ’s new play, “Rock ’n’ Roll,” invokes him as a lost free spirit.



Posted By: man@arms
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 12:20
Syd was a genius in my book


Posted By: RoyalJelly
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 12:26
Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Originally posted by Tony Fisher Tony Fisher wrote:

Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Well said! I agree with every word.


Exactly my thoughts too.
 
This post is rather arrogant and ignorant. Syd was a fount of creativity, and like another troubled songwriter generally refered to as a genius, Brian Wilson, even in the depths of his mental troubles, Syd could kick out 10 songs a day, maybe not all masterpieces, but jewels of spontanaeity...that's where I see the value of his contribution, especially on his solo albums. It's like you can hear the act of creation occuring in the moments he made the recording. I can think of little music that is that spontaneous and immediate, maybe in jazz once in a while, but especially in the realm of song-writing. This gave many of his songs an absolutely original rhythmic bent, since it wasn't music normal people could count, or band members could even work out together, just Syd's brain flowing through voice and guitar, creating as the ideas came to him.


Posted By: dralan
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 12:41
The fact is, whether you consider him a genius or not, there would be no Pink Floyd without him. So in light of his death I think we should just reflect on the music and thank God for PF........................


Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 13:04
Quote I do not believe he was a genius, and I think it is ridiculous how many people do because I feel it is only at his DEATH that most believe this.


No, actually, his fans are now coming out into the open, driven by his death; now we feel responsible to make people see what Syd had done. Before it was just one of those"'Oh you know there was this guy named Syd who started Pink Floyd and they kicked him out because they thought he was a liability? But he just had a different creativity that the band didn't think would sell anymore."

Now it's "The Piper is dead! And we're the children who followed him at his coattails, and now it's our duty to make sure he isn't forgotten."


And yes, he was a genius no matter which way you stack it. For somebody to write a song like 'Bicycle' --- you don't find that amazing?
How about the way he wrote lyrics that perfectly reflected the human thought process? No other artist has been able to capture the human mind quite like Syd did; you listen to the lyrics and it's just like having the thoughts in your own head, but in the form of words.

Just wait until his demo recordings are all released. He wrote thousands of songs after he left the band. Just wait. They'll come. He's undoubtedly one of the most prolific and creative artists to ever grace this green earth.

http://www.sydbarrett.org/artbysydbarrett.htm

Go there. Look through all his works.
To say that this man wasn't a genius would be to deny one of the pioneers of underground psychedelic rock.


Posted By: Goldenavatar
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 13:17
Originally posted by RoyalJelly RoyalJelly wrote:

Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Originally posted by Tony Fisher Tony Fisher wrote:

Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Well said! I agree with every word.


Exactly my thoughts too.
 
This post is rather arrogant and ignorant. Syd was a fount of creativity, and like another troubled songwriter generally refered to as a genius, Brian Wilson, even in the depths of his mental troubles, Syd could kick out 10 songs a day, maybe not all masterpieces, but jewels of spontanaeity...that's where I see the value of his contribution, especially on his solo albums. It's like you can hear the act of creation occuring in the moments he made the recording. I can think of little music that is that spontaneous and immediate, maybe in jazz once in a while, but especially in the realm of song-writing. This gave many of his songs an absolutely original rhythmic bent, since it wasn't music normal people could count, or band members could even work out together, just Syd's brain flowing through voice and guitar, creating as the ideas came to him.
 
 You can't think of much music that is spontaneous and immediate? You haven't listened to much music have you! You can go to a bar and here music that is spontaneously generated. Not only that, but it's probably considerably better than Barrett's. Jazz, blues, rock, zydeco, kletzmer, bluegrass, even classical have tremendous moments of spontanaeity. The only music I can think of off the top of my head that probably has no spontanaeity is serialism.
 
 Concerning busting out 10 songs a day, so what? By your own admission, some of them weren't that great. Plus, there are many prolific musicians out there. If you want to consider someone who really is instrumentally virtuoso and amazingly prolific, consider Prince. Make all the jokes you want, the guy can play!
 
 The original list was far to kind in my opinion. Barrett was not even a mediocre player. He was an awful guitar player. Anyone who listens to "The Madcap Laughs" and thinks, "Whoa, great guitar technique," must not know much about guitar. Don't get me wrong, I like Syd's solo work, but I can at least admit he was not an instrumental talent.
 
 Concerning his influence: it takes more than influence to be considered a genius, quite frankly. Kurt Cobain had tremendous influence over players for the last ten years. And I don't see too many people here claiming he was a genius. Please don't either.
 
 Finally, consider people who really are geniuses by all accounts. I personally can only think of one person whom I consider to be a genius. And that is the master himself, J. S. Bach. I'm hesistant even to apply the word to Mozart or Beethoven, much less someone from the British Psychedelia movement. It seems to me if you're throwing the word "genius" around with that much whimsy, you clearly don't think it means the same thing I do.
 
As always, my humble opinion.


Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 13:19
Originally posted by DeepPhreeze DeepPhreeze wrote:

[quote]

Go there. Look through all his works.
To say that this man wasn't a genius would be to deny one of the pioneers of underground psychedelic rock.
Syd was just as prolific as John Lennon in my opinion.


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


Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 13:23
He had a folk style. He didn't have to be the best guitarist out there, or even a very good one. It just contributes to the feel of his music. I think it matches his subject matter very well.

And you're focusing too much on the music as you hear it instead of how it's written.

You can have the best technique in the world but if you aren't creative you're just a machine.

You must be listening to his music in the wrong context; he wasn't making music to sell. He was making it for himself. And that makes it all the greater.

edit:
Quote Syd was just as prolific as John Lennon in my opinion.

Maybe moreso. We'll have to wait for all his demos and other pieces to be released.


Posted By: RoyalJelly
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 13:56
Originally posted by Goldenavatar Goldenavatar wrote:

Originally posted by RoyalJelly RoyalJelly wrote:

Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Originally posted by Tony Fisher Tony Fisher wrote:

Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Well said! I agree with every word.


Exactly my thoughts too.
 
This post is rather arrogant and ignorant. Syd was a fount of creativity, and like another troubled songwriter generally refered to as a genius, Brian Wilson, even in the depths of his mental troubles, Syd could kick out 10 songs a day, maybe not all masterpieces, but jewels of spontanaeity...that's where I see the value of his contribution, especially on his solo albums. It's like you can hear the act of creation occuring in the moments he made the recording. I can think of little music that is that spontaneous and immediate, maybe in jazz once in a while, but especially in the realm of song-writing. This gave many of his songs an absolutely original rhythmic bent, since it wasn't music normal people could count, or band members could even work out together, just Syd's brain flowing through voice and guitar, creating as the ideas came to him.
 
 You can't think of much music that is spontaneous and immediate? You haven't listened to much music have you! You can go to a bar and here music that is spontaneously generated. Not only that, but it's probably considerably better than Barrett's. Jazz, blues, rock, zydeco, kletzmer, bluegrass, even classical have tremendous moments of spontanaeity. The only music I can think of off the top of my head that probably has no spontanaeity is serialism.
 
 Concerning busting out 10 songs a day, so what? By your own admission, some of them weren't that great. Plus, there are many prolific musicians out there. If you want to consider someone who really is instrumentally virtuoso and amazingly prolific, consider Prince. Make all the jokes you want, the guy can play!
 
 The original list was far to kind in my opinion. Barrett was not even a mediocre player. He was an awful guitar player. Anyone who listens to "The Madcap Laughs" and thinks, "Whoa, great guitar technique," must not know much about guitar. Don't get me wrong, I like Syd's solo work, but I can at least admit he was not an instrumental talent.
 
 Concerning his influence: it takes more than influence to be considered a genius, quite frankly. Kurt Cobain had tremendous influence over players for the last ten years. And I don't see too many people here claiming he was a genius. Please don't either.
 
 Finally, consider people who really are geniuses by all accounts. I personally can only think of one person whom I consider to be a genius. And that is the master himself, J. S. Bach. I'm hesistant even to apply the word to Mozart or Beethoven, much less someone from the British Psychedelia movement. It seems to me if you're throwing the word "genius" around with that much whimsy, you clearly don't think it means the same thing I do.
 
As always, my humble opinion.
 
I wrote "I could think of little music that was THAT spontaneous and immediate", meaning it shows a greater degree of spontanaeity than most. As a musician, I learned a lot about the act of musical creation by listening to Syd's unique solo music, which is not simply about mechanical technique. I'm also not for throwing around the word genius so lightly, but would rather spend a few words of kindness on the passing of a great artist (by any measure), by pointing out the many positive aspects of his contribution than spewing out negative vitriole to sully the memory of someone you're not in the position to appreciate. Maybe you should go try creating something that good instead of pissing on the ones who could?


Posted By: kebjourman
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:02
Originally posted by aprusso aprusso wrote:

well, he invented psychedelic rock, he invented a new lifestyle for British people, he laid down the musical ideas for 30 years of Pink Floyd music, he is the most imitated songwriter by hundreds of indie bands as of 2006
who would be a genius then? the singer of opeth?
 
stole the words from my mouth


Posted By: AcostaFulano
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:04
Originally posted by CaptainWafflos CaptainWafflos wrote:

Syd Barrett was sixty years old. He didn't die young~

It's a hell of a lot better than people considering Kurt Cobain to be a musical genius, at least. Syd at least had an undeniable amount of musical talent.
 
I think Kurt Cobain was a genius in what he did... he got to move a huge mass of people and make them think the way he did... even though i think his music is not very good... if his purpose in the musical world was that, he did it quite well IMO (you guys should see my cousin   -____-")


Posted By: horza
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:10
A genius ?

I'm not sure he was a genius - but he was responsible for Pink Floyd or at least the Pink Floyd I enjoyed.

Not so sure about the genius thing though.



    

-------------
Originally posted by darkshade:

Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.


Posted By: horza
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:18
Originally posted by aprusso

"well, he invented psychedelic rock, he invented a new lifestyle for British people, he laid down the musical ideas for 30 years of Pink Floyd music, he is the most imitated songwriter by hundreds of indie bands as of 2006
who would be a genius then? the singer of opeth?"



Look buddy, don't go sl*gging the lead singer of Opeth just because people are debating the merits of calling Syd Barrett a genius. This 'singer of Opeth'(Mikael Åkerfeldt)is actually an extremely talented and prolific musician - the fact that he chooses not to consume vast amounts of LSD does not detract from his status - no doubt when he dies (and I hope that is a long time away) then people may appreciate him more - maybe by then you will too.







    

-------------
Originally posted by darkshade:

Calling Mike Portnoy a bad drummer is like calling Stephen Hawking an idiot.


Posted By: DeepPhreeze
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:20
Anybody know where I can host a 3mb MP3 and can directly link to it?

I just found the Syd demo recording with The Beatles of 'What A Shame Mary Jane'.

At first I thought it was Lennon trying to sound like Syd but it's very clearly Syd... then Lennon and Syd trade off...


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:31
He almost certainly wasn't a genius, and the term is rather too freely used, IMHO.Stern Smile
 
Most seem to mean "great" or "very good at what he did" (in fairness, the word does have that secondary connotation) when they use it, as opposed to the primary meaning of "possessing far above-average intelligence."
 
(And thus language and meaning evolve through usage.)Geek
 


-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Chris_Kemp
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 14:40
No. But he had an uncompromised artistic vision and that is a rare thing.

-------------
"That's not your face...it's mine! IT'S MINE!!


Posted By: Dr4Wazo
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 15:25
"Don't mistake lack of talent for genius"

(written on the back of Type O Negative's "Bloody Kisses")


IMO, He was not such a genius... I find his solo work quite boring...


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


"Mëem Otsilennhetëe Dros Sun Surra Steuhn Do Nansei"


Posted By: Rust
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 15:44
I'm shocked at how ignorant many of you are, can you not see where this thread has obviously gone?
 
Let me open some of the more argumentative people's eyes for them. Stern Smile
 
The name of this thread really should be, "Is [insert prefered band name here] really a prog band?"
 
This thread is stupid, and the question is too oppinionated for debate.
 
I won't argue my thoughts in this thread because of the,
 
1. Pointlessness of it.
2. I really don't care what others think about something that I personally know/believe.
3. The guy just passed away for God's sake. Have some Censored decency will you? Angry
 
 
Ying Yang


-------------
We got to pump the stuff to make us tough
from the heart
Its astart
What we need is awareness we cant get careless
Mental self defensive fitness
Make everybody see in order to fight the powers that be


Posted By: ShW1
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 16:06
Shell we make a poll 'was syd barret a genious or not'? Smile
 
In my humble opinion, 'genious' is a term that should be only in use for some classical composers.
 
But... if we can use this term more freely... he HAD that very special something... he had those 'sparks'...
 
'the piper at the gates of dawn' is my preferable Pink Floyd album. even though it sounds different from what Pink Floyd done at the next years... and without despite what Pink Floyd done afterwards...
 
as a guitarist - he lacks techniqs, but had a very unique style, that many guitarist are influenced by until today...
 
It's difficult to know how he would develop if he stayed in a proper mental state...
its even hard to know how Pink Floyd would sound with him... maby less good? it could have happen...
 
obviously he was very talented, and his music ends to soon, due to his mental situation... actually he didnt live proper life since he was about 22... for almost 40 years...
 
may he rest in peaceDisapprove 


Posted By: Baggiesfaninuk
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 19:51
Originally posted by Rocktopus Rocktopus wrote:

[QUOTE=Bern] [QUOTE=Tony Fisher] [QUOTE=toolis]
some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..Pioneers are often looked upon as geniuses. Piper... defined the sound of psychedelia in '67!

6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...Name one album pre- Piper... sounding close to this experimental and psychedelic (certainly not Revolver). Early Floyd was a big influence on Krautrock, Canterbury and the psychedelic elements of prog in general.



The sound evolved through him and the Floyd but he didn't define it in my opinion. Revolver (although I hate to say it), together with The Byrds' 'Fifth Dimension' and Zappa and the Mothers' 'Freak Out' were clear influences on the whole scene and often regarded as the birth of psychedelia in 1966. We can argue the toss until the cows come home but you have your opinion and I have mine. However, he was clearly a huge influence on the London scene in a relatively short time - together with the unfortunate habit, which ultimately led to his demise.

Even 1967 produced beauties such as the eponymous Grateful Dead debut - PATGOD wasn't alone. I don't believe Syd was instrumental in defining the sound or spawning Psychedelia per se. For instance, around the same time, both The Soft Machine and The Doors were gaining huge reputations for similar reasons. In fact, I might suggest that The Softs were more influential on the Canterbury scene than Floyd given the manner in which both groups evolved.

Although I don't consider Syd a genius, he will remain a legend. And in years to come it will continue, as the mention of his name will I'm sure, generate further debates such as this.


-------------
My father was a beekeeper before me; his father was a beekeeper. I want to follow in their footsteps. And their footsteps were like this. (Runs screaming) "AAAAAAAH! I'm covered in beeeeees!" - Izzard


Posted By: The Wizard
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 20:02
I'm listening to his solo stuff right now, which is more lyrics oriented. His lyrics have a way of being almost nonsense on paper but having an almost deep meaning when sung. Pure genius.

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


Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 20:06
Originally posted by Australian Australian wrote:

Originally posted by CaptainWafflos CaptainWafflos wrote:

Syd Barrett was sixty years old. He didn't die young~

It's a hell of a lot better than people considering Kurt Cobain to be a musical genius, at least. Syd at least had an undeniable amount of musical talent.
 
Syd was a big loss. Greg Allman and Betts  died young and they were very good musicians.
 
And don't forget he founded Pink Floyd.


Dude, you mean Duane Allman, Greg is still very much with us, as is Dickie Betts come to think of it!

You mean Berry Oakley.


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


Posted By: mapman
Date Posted: July 12 2006 at 21:24
He was apparently a very talented individual with artistic vision.  He also apparently + sadly lost his grip on reality.   These are the key aspects of his life that make him an interesting celebrity figure.   I don't think it really matters if he was a "genius" or "not".   There is no question that he was innovative musically, at least for a while in his youth.  He appeared to live a very sad life for which I empathize with him.  There are many positive lessons to be learned from his life + legacy, focus on these...being a certifiable genius or not is really not very relevant.


Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 10:55
The "crazy diamond" WAS a genius, of course. This is being posted by a NON-PF-fan so you can really take it seriously. It's a sad tragedy that it somehow seems to be the nature of what we have to call "genius" in art, that those people tend to self-distruction or, like Hermann Hesse wrote, "are bound to fail/splinter at the world". It's a thin line between genius and madman, sometimes we're both, and, well, Syd WAS. May he rest in peace !Cry

-------------
...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock !


Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 10:57

Syd Barrett was good at his job but not a genius...peace to his soul



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


Posted By: A B Negative
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 11:58
Syd Barrett was a genius. His music was profoundly important to me, more important than the later, non-Barrett Floyd (although I still love them). Yes, some of his songs sound like they are the work of someone who is on the edge of sanity but have you ever heard Daniel Johnston?


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 12:14
Originally posted by CaptainWafflos CaptainWafflos wrote:

Syd Barrett was sixty years old. He didn't die young~
 
He almost vanished after the first Floyd album, after that he was a shadow, it's almost the same as if he had  died, he was the brightest shinning star that turned into a legend between reality and dream.
 
Even the urban myths of people claiming to have seen Syd hidding by the curtains during later Pink Floyd gigs contributed to build the legend of mystery around him.

Yes, the fact that he didn't aged playing with Floyd makes him a legend and that contributes to the aura of genius created around him, nobody will ever know if he would have adapted to the new music that Pink Floyd played or if the band would have disapeared if he would have stayed.

Gilmour took Floyd to another level and was able to work with Waters in the creation and to balance both styles.

It's a hell of a lot better than people considering Kurt Cobain to be a musical genius, at least. Syd at least had an undeniable amount of musical talent.
 
I agree with that his music in Piper at the Gates of Dawn was the creation of a genius, Jugband Blues from A Saucerful of Secrets is not as brilliant and his solo albums, well are very inconsistent, some briliant moments others not.
 
Barrett had a brilliant start but a real genius have to prove that attribute along a cereer and he didn't had the time to prove it.
 
I'm not sure that Floyd would have reached the status of legend with Barrett instead of Gilmour, but nobody knows.
 
Iván
 


-------------
            


Posted By: Goldenavatar
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 14:00
Originally posted by RoyalJelly RoyalJelly wrote:

Originally posted by Goldenavatar Goldenavatar wrote:

Originally posted by RoyalJelly RoyalJelly wrote:

Originally posted by Bern Bern wrote:

Originally posted by Tony Fisher Tony Fisher wrote:

Originally posted by toolis toolis wrote:


some personal points on the subject:

1.Syd was not a genius..
2.it doesn't matter what age he died at, tottaly irrelevant...
3.there are greater music talents out there, that's for sure...
4.no one, i mean NO ONE can ever guess how Floyd would be if he didn't leave the band...my humble opinion is that he would drag the rest down with him and Roger wouldn't have the space to conceive the brilliant music of WYWH, DSOTM, the Wall and Animals.. lets face it, the guy was a different kind of song writer...
5.Syd was a bohemian, drug addict, mediocre player. This doesn't add up to a genius...
6.by the time Floyd released PATGOD, Britain's psychedelic rock scene was already very active.. he was not as influential as you think...
7.boy, if i were stoned all the time too, hell, i could put a few words together and impress you...


Well said! I agree with every word.


Exactly my thoughts too.
 
This post is rather arrogant and ignorant. Syd was a fount of creativity, and like another troubled songwriter generally refered to as a genius, Brian Wilson, even in the depths of his mental troubles, Syd could kick out 10 songs a day, maybe not all masterpieces, but jewels of spontanaeity...that's where I see the value of his contribution, especially on his solo albums. It's like you can hear the act of creation occuring in the moments he made the recording. I can think of little music that is that spontaneous and immediate, maybe in jazz once in a while, but especially in the realm of song-writing. This gave many of his songs an absolutely original rhythmic bent, since it wasn't music normal people could count, or band members could even work out together, just Syd's brain flowing through voice and guitar, creating as the ideas came to him.
 
 You can't think of much music that is spontaneous and immediate? You haven't listened to much music have you! You can go to a bar and here music that is spontaneously generated. Not only that, but it's probably considerably better than Barrett's. Jazz, blues, rock, zydeco, kletzmer, bluegrass, even classical have tremendous moments of spontanaeity. The only music I can think of off the top of my head that probably has no spontanaeity is serialism.
 
 Concerning busting out 10 songs a day, so what? By your own admission, some of them weren't that great. Plus, there are many prolific musicians out there. If you want to consider someone who really is instrumentally virtuoso and amazingly prolific, consider Prince. Make all the jokes you want, the guy can play!
 
 The original list was far to kind in my opinion. Barrett was not even a mediocre player. He was an awful guitar player. Anyone who listens to "The Madcap Laughs" and thinks, "Whoa, great guitar technique," must not know much about guitar. Don't get me wrong, I like Syd's solo work, but I can at least admit he was not an instrumental talent.
 
 Concerning his influence: it takes more than influence to be considered a genius, quite frankly. Kurt Cobain had tremendous influence over players for the last ten years. And I don't see too many people here claiming he was a genius. Please don't either.
 
 Finally, consider people who really are geniuses by all accounts. I personally can only think of one person whom I consider to be a genius. And that is the master himself, J. S. Bach. I'm hesistant even to apply the word to Mozart or Beethoven, much less someone from the British Psychedelia movement. It seems to me if you're throwing the word "genius" around with that much whimsy, you clearly don't think it means the same thing I do.
 
As always, my humble opinion.
 
I wrote "I could think of little music that was THAT spontaneous and immediate", meaning it shows a greater degree of spontanaeity than most. As a musician, I learned a lot about the act of musical creation by listening to Syd's unique solo music, which is not simply about mechanical technique. I'm also not for throwing around the word genius so lightly, but would rather spend a few words of kindness on the passing of a great artist (by any measure), by pointing out the many positive aspects of his contribution than spewing out negative vitriole to sully the memory of someone you're not in the position to appreciate. Maybe you should go try creating something that good instead of pissing on the ones who could?
 
 Even with your clarification, I still have to wonder about the lack of spontanaeity in the music you must listen to. Syd's formless style amounts to little more than a few major and minor chords thrown together. And let me reiterate, I LIKE Syd's music. I DO appreciate it. But I'm not fooling myself about his talent. I recall, years ago a friend of mine and I were listening to some of Syd's stuff. There were off-key notes all over the place and Syd actually comes in at the wrong time (in his own music!). You know he's wrong too because he corrects himself. My friend remarked, "He's trying so hard."
 As for myself, as a musician, I learned a lot about the act of musical creation by writing four voice chorales and studying tonality. (You're the one who brought up pissingLOL). Bring on the insults!


Posted By: bucka001
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 15:27
Originally posted by Baggiesfaninuk Baggiesfaninuk wrote:

Without Syd, Floyd would not have evolved into what they are now.
 
I'd prefer the comment "With Syd still in the band, Floyd would not have devolved into what they are now."
 
He was a genius.
 
Speaking of controversy, there are a lot of alternative, left field music lovers (possibly not on this board) who feel that PF went south with Dark Side and everything thereafter. PF became the "safe" mind blowers for the masses; very middle-of-the-road rock dressed up with sound effects to give the illusion of ground-breaking creativity. It's only my opinion, but I found them completely unchallenging and boring. Of course, given their status as billion-sellers, that's a minority view.
 
Piper, however, was (to me) the best psyche album ever. There is a *legitimate* lunacy there that's fun, awe-inspiring, and ground breaking. Syd took that beautiful craziness with him when he left. It's like the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, but much better and with a leader who was more interested in art than getting girls (ala Bob Markley)... and I love WCPAEB.


-------------
jc


Posted By: micky
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 16:05
with all due respect to the recently departed...


genius is a term that is WAY overused... a tragic figure to be sure but nowhere close to a genius for god's  sake.


-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip


Posted By: KazimirMajorinc
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 20:00
For me he is genius

   genius = outstanding creativity &
   Piper = one of the few best and most original rock albums

That's it.

This thread is stupid, and the question is too oppinionated for debate.

I think nothing is too oppinionated for debate.



Posted By: Asyte2c00
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 21:41
Ben Jonson once said when describing Shakespeare's work
 
"He was not of an era, but for all time."
 
 
The quote above vividly describes the influence of Syd Barret on generation of musicians as well as a generation of music. 
 
Notice how we are not extolling Comus, Trees, and Quckmessenger Service at the same level as Barret.  Barret did something others failed to do, his contemporaies lacked a vision he uniquely possessed.  Only select few musicians with similar mental instabilities would reach the lofty heights of his genius (Nick Drake (manic depression), Ian Curtis (Epilepsy), Kurt Cobain (suicidal depression). 


Posted By: kebjourman
Date Posted: July 13 2006 at 23:29
im so happy to see all these people defending syd, i was strarting to think that no one here really appreciated him
 
 
Smile
 


Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 14 2006 at 03:25
Originally posted by bucka001 bucka001 wrote:

 
Piper, however, was (to me) the best psyche album ever. There is a *legitimate* lunacy there that's fun, awe-inspiring, and ground breaking. Syd took that beautiful craziness with him when he left.


I agree.


-------------
Over land and under ashes
In the sunlight, see - it flashes
Find a fly and eat his eye
But don't believe in me
Don't believe in me
Don't believe in me


Posted By: rupert
Date Posted: July 14 2006 at 14:29
To specify my comments: A GENIUS is an over-all talented child at play which, in its innocence, can't do anything wrong, and that's exactly what Syd WAS, no daubt about it, you don't have to like his music in order to agree. A well known sign of genius is that a genius starts needing/searching for PROOF it's still the same... no matter what he does, you know ? He's diggin' deeper and deeper wanting to prove to himself he's able to do EVERYTHING he wants to, and thereby loses his innocence which is no less than the ABILITY to believe that everything is alright.
Dug it ? God have mercy on all genius-type of human beings, god have mercy on Syd !


-------------
...I'm a musician/singer/songwriter, visit me on www.reverbnation.com/rupertlenz and there you can choose from 125 recordings you can listen to ( for free ) if you're not limited to prog-rock !


Posted By: T.Rox
Date Posted: July 15 2006 at 22:24
When a man can get an RIP placard on a traffic bridge in Fremantle, Western Australia - half a world and half a lifetime away from his brief flirt with fame - it says something about his lasting influence ... whether or not any of us believe he is a genius!
 
"Shine on you crazy diamond"
 
RIP Syd Barrett
 
Allmusic.com Article ... http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=61::67NP - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=61::67NP


-------------
"Without prog, life would be a mistake."



...with apologies to Friedrich Nietzsche



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk