Syd Barrett at Shine on session

[GilmourGirl]

2. OK, now I am begging you to explain me that "Barrett's vision" you keep talking about. Because I simply fail to see any trace of influence of Syd Barrett on any of these two albums, and if I were to choose I believe I'd be closer to choosing "The Final Cut" as more true to the original Pink Floyd vision, drawing parallels to early Roger Waters songs such as "If" or "Grantchester Meadows", which were obvious (and not really successful) attempts to re-create Syd Barrett's style.

Quite simple actually. Go back to the UFO Club and those trippy psychedelic shows. Barretts performance. As creatively genious as that guy was, you don't think his M-O was "I'm going to fuck with peoples heads."? That was his vision was to make music and shows that would fuck with people. The lights are amazing at their shows, and even The G remarked that he was getting tired of coming up with different ways to do solos. But he never failed to deliver. Granted, 'The Wall' was Waters' baby, and that was a good mind-fuck, but post-Waters, The Gilmour still carried on with Barretts vision of fucking with our heads with the Floyds music and performances. The Gilmour got it. He just got it naturally. Waters, awesome as he is, acted like he got it but was so extreme about it that he became transparent. While I enjoyed TFC, it failed to fuck with my head the way the other Floyd stuff did. The whole Pink Floyd experience is a beautiful mind-fuck. And that, I feel, was created by Barrett. He knew what he was doing. The whole time. The whooole time. He was a bad muthafucka bless his heart.

I'm prepared for the ass-chewing I may receive. But now I want to hear thoughts on Egypt so I'm moving to start a thread about it if it hasn't been done already.

Oh, sorry your first time wasn't as awesome as mine. A mind-fuck while you're being fucked is a wonderful thing.

[my breakfast.]

GG, everything you posted is your personal opinion and interpretation. At best you are using the excuse that Pink Floyd "fucked" with your head as a means of justifying your beliefs and then translating them into facts.

For what its worth I lost my virginity listening to sludge metal. However I'm sure you care as little as the rest of the forum cares what dirty shit you got up to in your younger years. Its unimportant. Why do some Americans always have to be needlessly sentimental about the most basic stuff?

Actually this whole thread reeks of conjecture dressed up as fact. We know nothing more than the basics.

1) Roger "Syd" Barrett made an appearance at a recording session, most likely for Shine On but definitely WYWH era.

2) We don't know what was being recorded or listened to when he turned up. Reports conflict and if we are rational about it it is too hammy and too much of an over-romanticised self-profecy that he should turn up when they were laying down Shine On, so it is unlikely.

3) Thats it. We don't know what he did, said or how long he hung around for. We don't know the band's reactions. Reports conflict on pretty much every other aspect of this visit. It seems some people want to repaint him as lucid at this event and that he had a few pints in the bar later. Other want to portray him as a crazy bastard who brushed his teeth and spoke in non sequiters and wanted to lay down guitar tracks.

All we have is that one photo and the fact he turned up at a recording session. The rest is conflicting and therefore untrustworthy.



At the end of the day Syd Barrett's life and works are probably the best and most widely-encompassing Rorschach test that ever happened. If you want to see bits of Syd in your life and want his music to mean something deep for you then it can. If you want him to be a crazed psychonaut like an extra from Alice in Wonderland he will fill that void too. If you want to believe that the best art comes from broken minds then stick on anything he touched. If you want to praise him as an innovative leader in no-wave guitar techniques, musique concrete, ambient and found-sound composition then step right up. You want a poet that could give Coleridge a run for his money? Go for it. You want a painter who knew no limits? I could go on. But equally you could say he was a roughshod guitarist, an idiosyncratic and undisciplined musician, poet and painter who fell victim to his own self indulgence. Basically the dude was a giant mirror held up in your face... wait isn't that on an album cover?

[GilmourGirl]

I was waiting for Alan (I hope I got that right) to show up. You have a way of simplifying things.

First off, no, I don't know what went on when that infamous photo was taken, nor do I care to know. I'm not sure what you think, but I'm not one of those Astral Pipers that sit around dissecting Barretts mind while playing his music. I'm not a fan of art, poetry or any of that. I was merely looking at the big picture of what Barrett had in mind for the Floyds whole existence as a band. Hell yea its only my opinion, but others I know (personally, not on here as you're all strangers) pretty much shared my opinion that hey The Floyd fucks with your head. So what? Its not a bad thing. Quite the contrary. I mentioned NOTHING about Barretts mental state. I'm a fan of his music, of the Floyds music, and that's it. I was asked to explain my "beliefs" as you call my opinion, so I did.

Americans being sentimental over "basic stuff?" Of course I am. I'm a girl. And I like throwing some light humor into what I write. Sorry it got your panties in a wad. Jokiing.

Bottom line is, like you said. He showed up, no one knows what went on, that's that. We can interpret the Floyd sound however we want. I'm a fan of the Barrett Floyd and post-Barrett Floyd. But I'm not one to romanticize whatever was going on with him. That is obssession. You missed the whole point of that debate. Why do you Europeans insist on seeing only what you want to see?

But you ARE an important member of this board and I always like what you have to say even if you seem kinda uptight. Ciao!

[my breakfast.]

Why do you Europeans insist on seeing only what you want to see?

I don't see a problem here. Our attitude lead us to make your country.

[GilmourGirl]

My breakfast you're alright.

[oldperfume]

Per "Gilmour Girl", I have to side with her. I don't think Syd planned on doing the "mind fuck" thing when he was on stage. I think HE wanted to do his OWN mind thing & it backfired. I think Syd was an artist in its purest form & when TOTP's & photo shoots & dumb ass interviews came along (See: Hans Keller!) He just probably thought it wasn't worth it.
Listen to ANY Floyd album after he was "Fired" & I think you hear a little bit of Syd on every album. Just my opinion. He must've done something...he's been dead almost 5 years & didn't record for 30 plus years b4 that. His stuff lives on man whether you agree with it or not.

[my breakfast.]

Per "Gilmour Girl", I have to side with her. I don't think Syd planned on doing the "mind fuck" thing when he was on stage. I think HE wanted to do his OWN mind thing & it backfired. I think Syd was an artist in its purest form & when TOTP's & photo shoots & dumb ass interviews came along (See: Hans Keller!) He just probably thought it wasn't worth it.

I totally agree with this. Pop music is contrived bullshit today, and it was even worse in 1967. It was viewed as a fad that would soon blow over, so you get Pink Floyd rolled out to be harrassed by arsey old TV interviewers or asked stupid questions on the Pat Boone show.

[Hudini]

I also agree, but I still don't see any "spirit of Syd Barrett" in The ( ) Gilmour-led Pink Floyd.

[my breakfast.]

The push for a total all-sensory experience might be it. Its sad we don't have footage after 1972, becuase I think the whole deal with a screen and fireworks and low flying planes was maybe from the same mindset that Syd talked about when he mentioned synching the music and the oil light effects. Having said that Syd's childlike whimsy and explosive-percussive guitar playing seem not to have been carried over.

[Hudini]

Well, if all-sensory experience, in the means of enhancing the show with visual elements synced with music, is "the spirit of Syd" (and I am open to believe it might be, judging by the nature of the early Pink Floyd shows, strictly musical content set aside), then one who claims it was David Gilmour and not Roger Waters who carried on with it clearly has no clue on what Roger Waters was up to in the last 10 years or so.

[danielcaux]

Well, if all-sensory experience, in the means of enhancing the show with visual elements synced with music, is "the spirit of Syd" (and I am open to believe it might be, judging by the nature of the early Pink Floyd shows, strictly musical content set aside), then one who claims it was David Gilmour and not Roger Waters who carried on with it clearly has no clue on what Roger Waters was up to in the last 10 years or so.

10 years? Waters has been doing that "all sensory" thing since the 70s with PF and since the 80s with his solo shows! The difference with 80s Floyd is that it was an all sensory experience that ALSO included the brain and the heart, not just the eyes and ears. As for the smell, and maybe even the taste, well I guess the audience helped with that bit.

[my breakfast.]

Roger's use of halophonics is quite remarkable. I would not say its "keeping alive the spirit of Syd" as just pushing to achieve the same things.

[Hudini]

10 years? Waters has been doing that "all sensory" thing since the 70s with PF and since the 80s with his solo shows!

I am aware that his solo shows remained on the track Pink Floyd shows set in the 70s, but it would be very unfair to say that he's been doing shows since the 80s. He's had a tour in 1984/85 and another one in 1987, and then there were 12 years of performing silence from him, except from the Berlin show. His main touring activity (the years of consecutive touring, and very poor studio activity) started in 1999. But yes, he insisted on "all-sensory experience" all throughout his solo career.

And I would kindly ask all of you who keep talking about "the brain and the heart" thing to point me the lack of brain and heart in Roger Waters solo work. I may be stupid, but I think it's just another "I love Gilmour, I hate Waters" issue. Because, as far as I can tell, as stupid as I could be, there's an equal amount of brain and heart on both accounts there. Lots of brain, not much heart.

[danielcaux]

10 years? Waters has been doing that "all sensory" thing since the 70s with PF and since the 80s with his solo shows!

And I would kindly ask all of you who keep talking about "the brain and the heart" thing to point me the lack of brain and heart in Roger Waters solo work.

Well, I was refereing to the lack of "brain and heart" in Gilmour's Floyd shows compared with Waters 80s solo shows. But yes I guess you could say that Gilmour's Floyd also had a little bit of heart, a dumb and hedonistic heart, but heart nonetheless. Appearently in the 80s he loved to fly, although I'm not sure if he was refering to planes or cocaine highs.

But there was love.


And sorrow.



By the way, nice dog.

[Hudini]

Well, I was refereing to the lack of "brain and heart" in Gilmour's Floyd shows compared with Waters 80s solo shows. But yes I guess you could say that Gilmour's Floyd also had a little bit of heart, a dumb and hedonistic heart, but heart nonetheless.

I misunderstood you there, but yes, I also think Roger's 80s shows had more heart than Pink Floyd's from the same era. Pink Floyd's 90s shows were quite different IMHO, especially because of Rick's and Nick's restored musical confidence which changed the whole feeling of the shows, and it was no longer "David and some other guys (Rick and Nick included) playing bad 80s music and Pink Floyd music in similar bad arrangements", it was almost Pink Floyd again. IMHO.

And thanks.