Roger Waters vs Syd Barrett

[Rit]

i'm no Yoda, more like General Grievous.

[georgeltirebiter]

Im more like Greedo when he shoots first.
Whatever that means.

[Thorngrub]

I think it means they wouldn't have had to edit you out.

Whatever that means.

[Rit]

Piper At The Gates of Dawn
the magic is in the details. Literally, there is a ghost in this machine, a living breathing amalgamation of Syd Barrett's personality and the fleeting art commune he gathered around him for a brief while.

see, i know that the Waters-era Floyd was a more stable configuration, and that many prefer his take on madness as a topic, only because they see that he was as cold and dissective of that theme as its possible to get in popular music, giving the impression of a tough foundation and rational viewpoint, if one is going to be bothered with things like madness and death and philosophical musings in music to begin with... fair enough.

but i want to argue to the counter. Syd's worldview was clearly less rationalistic. Less cohesive, less pre-meditated. It was instinctual. And, at least until 1968, he was not mad, he was just a naive person, with exuberant views and impulsive insights, with a very strong imagination, and quite obviously strong-willed, the alpha-male (if you will) in that small group of Cambridge artists and bohemians. He stuck to his (unorthodox) guns and shaped a highly unique band called The Pink Floyd, which turned out to be one of the strongest of the psychedelic bands in 1967. Totally disregarding Pink Floyd after Syd left for the time being, let's just look at Syd's era.

Piper at the Gates.. is much more relevant than the other major psych band Love's contemporary album from that time, Forever Changes.. which has the decayed edge of half-assed superiorty complexes and a disagreeable cloying atmosphere. It sounds dated to me.

[Rit]

Piper has lucid, impressionistic clear vignettes which pass for lyrics.

Musically, the guitar is often exciting as hell, even to this day, and to contemporary ears. Rick Wright's contrasting baroque organ fugues abound all over the place, giving a combined effect of musical cathedrals towering right in front of you. In fact, Wright brought the only bits of tutored musical sophistication to the album. Syd appeared as colourist and sound collage juxtapositionist, which is harder to do than it seems. To recognize one's role as that, and then to actaully enact that role in a band successfully is a far more impressive achievement, in my opinion. Nick Mason and Waters rounded out the music withi exotic drumming and simple (though elegant) often thumping basslines.

[Rit]

my Floyd collection in its entirety consists of the following albums. (i once upon a time had every single thing they ever put out, but a reassessment of what was good about them, followed by a trip to the secondhand stores, has trimmed that down.) Why list them out? it'll become apparent in a minute:

(put in chronological order)

-Pink Floyd in London ep (1966-1967)
-Relics (circa 1967-8)
-Piper At the Gates of Dawn (1967)
-A Saucerful of Secrets (1968)
-More (1969)
-The Madcap Laughs (1969)
-Barrett (1970)
-Meddle (1971)
-Obscured by Clouds (1972)
-The Dark Side Of The Moon (1972)
***

bonus material outside of that chronology:
-Opel
-The Final Cut
------------------------------------------------------------------

a case can be made that two albums in the "official" Pink Floyd mantra can be swapped out for the two Syd albums, namely Ummagumma (which is horrendous) and Atom Heart Mother (which is atrocious)

The two Syd solo albums are Madcap and Barrett and they deserve mention in the canon because they are for all intents and purposes Floyd albums, having been worked on by Floyd members. That's the Floyd on the backing instruments.

I think that these two albums, worked on in 1969 to 1970, which is the precise date of the two reviled Floyd albums (let us never speak of their names again), represent a telling illustration of the Floyd. At the same time that they were helping Syd make his fantastically important solo albums, they were acting like lobotomized lab rats on their own, creating ridiculous artsy-fartsy shite... it's clear that their genius was expended in the Syd albums, and they were jizzing mightily on their own, unsure of what to else to do in 1969-70.

[JACkory]

Methinks that you're not taking into account the CAUSE of Barrett's mental collapse.
LSD, my friend.
I personally know people who are in the same boat as Syd climbed into and for the same reason.
Shall we celebrate that?

[JACkory]

...oh, and nothing against a lil casual LSD use, but Syd took it far beyond "casual".

[Rit]

i don't like LSD at all, not even as casual use (though i've tried it)

still, am i going to condemn Syd Barrett's music completely because of that? no. because prudishness of that sort is a silly idea. So what, he took LSD. many other rockers overdose on many different types of drug, its just that their brand of dependancy is more socially acceptable?

what counts is 'results' in this world, that's what the people always say. and Syd produced. I keep returning back to him because i just want to oppose the commonly accepted belief that he was not worth shit. I find that the people who make that assumption tend to be over-sanctimonious types of a kind that ... yes, again... has been socially accepted as normal. So Waters' equally obsessive compulsive music is seen as "deep" or "worthy" because his faults are emblematic of what is respected and cool if you are to be the outsider rebel casting the critical cynical eye on the rest of society..

did i forget to mention those types of fan are impotent outsider rebels? why, yes, i did. but then, that myth of the impotent social rebel feeds much of rock and roll rebellion anyway, from Aerosmith to Motley Crue, and you're kidding yourself if you think that Waters-era Floyd represents anything other than wallpaper.

At least the Barrett-Floyd does not pretend to be socially radical (no mention of politics, no infantile rebel fantasies... instead, we have a worldview which is thoroughly subversive just in the very fact of its wild-eyed imaginative anarchy -- and people stoop to call his vision "childish", heh.. talk about rationalizing your comfort zones to the nth degree)

[Rit]

i'm not a crank by any means (at least, i don't think i am)

i'm just bemused by the strange opinions that surround us, which have somehow become such acceptable common myths.

it's not even that i spend all my time thinking about this. most of my brain is probably alcohol deadened by now, who knows...

it's just that this particular illustration of the "Syd" versus "Roger" debate symbolizes something larger for me, that totally amazes me. and leaves me befuddled as to why things are the way they are.

[Thorngrub]

1. It is not, so far as I know, a "commonly accepted belief" that Syd was worth shit.

Syd is a legend. That we (and by "we" I mean everyone who counts) can all agree upon.
So you are not on a different page as you might think you are, Rit! It's just (it seems as if) that is the ONLY page you have made your stance upon. Most of the rest of us can straddle the seperate pages of Roger and Syd; i.e, we (at least, speaking for myself) can appreciate both Syd & Roger's distinct contributions to the band.

As a matter of fact . . . I'd argue that it was, in effect, the very synthesis of their disparate styles which truly made the band. It is the very thing that made their Whole greater than the sum of their Parts. (Same thing worked with D.Gilmour/R.Waters: 'Twas their combined efforts which elevated the band to the point of worthiness.) Take either ingredient out of that combo, and you no longer have "the Pink Floyd".

In conclusion:

There is a good argument stating that the "Waterless" Floyd which featured just Gilmour & the other guys, was not REALLY "Pink Floyd".

Taking this exact same principle even further, one could build an argument (as I imagine YOU would) that the "Sydless" Floyd was not really "Pink Floyd", either.

*HOWEVER*:

The only problem with THAT assumption, is that it strikes of an inordinate degree of the "purist"; as many would have to admit that the Floyd era from Atom Heart Mother on until The Final Cut truly did exemplify the honest-to-goodness, "real deal" despite Syd's vacant seat. Perhaps, IT IS BECAUSE that seat was HONOURED so, that his ghostly presence was imbued into the music, lending it just the degree it needed to achieve authentic "Floyd" status.

[Thorngrub]

"Perhaps that seat was HONOURED so, that his ghostly presence was imbued into the music, lending it just the degree it needed to achieve authentic "Floyd" status. "

Hence, the timeless (albeit flawed) masterwork WISH YOU WERE HERE.

It's all about the Whole being Greater than the Sum of its Parts, Rit.

[Thorngrub]

To which I would add:

I would argue that the PINK FLOYD is an exemplary, perhaps the quintessential example OF the principle that the Whole can be Greater than the Sum of its Parts.


Now; if you can buy that (I would truly like to see you refute it!); then it follows, quite naturally, that to focus exceedingly on one member of the band (regardless whether it be Syd, Roger, or David) is to spit in the face of this indisputable truth. It is to take away from the grandeur of the very organic compound, or synthesis, which lies at the very heart of what made Pink Floyd tick.

I.E, in my humble opinion, one does this legendary band a disservice by neglecting to take into account THE WHOLE of their legacy. And the reason for this is because they were, essentially, a holistic band, by nature. THE holistic band, quite arguably.

In conclusion, I must state that I really DO appreciate the intricasy & devotion with which you have lauded Syd's unmistakably integral contribution. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that SYD was "Pink", if anyone was. So I just wanted to reiterate that I really do actually agree with EVERYTHING you said about Syd; but I vehemently disagree with your denial of the remaining members', Roger's in particular, overall worth to the band. You've got to take in the whole picture, IMO.

[Rit]

you know what, Thorn, i agree. thanks for having the courage to say that.

i've been listening quite a lot to my non-Syd floyd albums since yesterday, and while i still hate most of the Seventies stuff, i find that the slew of albums released right up to 1972 are great, esp More and Obscured By Clouds.

at least i can count on you to maintain the conversation by stating in good faith what you believe. thank god you're not as insecure as the rest.

[Thorngrub]

Man, I love both MORE and OBSCURED BY CLOUDS. haven't listened to more in a dog's age. . .the one highlight I recall, is "The Crying Song", such an eloquent, lyrical piece. I'd love to hear that gem again.

As for Obscured By Clouds . . . that album is honey-spun gold, to me. Such mournful, beautiful, lazy songs. Yet injected with a sense of growing menace. As far as mirrors go, Obscured By Clouds may be seen as the most *pristine* mirror, reflecting back with the most accuracy, the heart of what made Pink Floyd great.

And that tune "Free Four", daaaaaamn if it ain't right up there in the Top 5 Floyd Songs EVER, in my (once again humble) opinion.

"The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime"