Syd Barrett solo - classic or dud?

I think Syd's songs have a fantastic blend of emotion and imagination. I'm also a sucker for those progressions of pretty much only major triads, moving by thirds and fifths, or whatever it is exactly that he does. Bowie does a fair amount of it too. Can anyone give a more accurate description, or more examples?

Why do I always do this? Hearing "Sympathy For The Devil" after Screamadelica took some of my Scream love away, and now here we are again. Gah.

That bootleg also has the guitar doodlings from the aborted '74 sessions. Sadly uninspired.

The premise wasn't so much, "everybody's wrong about Syd," as, "Syd's legacy distorts how we consume his music," or, "Syd carries a terrifying amount of baggage, which is why they're trying to get $20 from the obsessive fans by releasing this slight and unnecessary album of reissued and substandard music." I could've written just one paragraph that said, this isn't worth the money, but it is a nice listen.

The last line is, yeah, kind of a throwaway.

As for "searching-everywhere-for-an-original-take" - I don't think this tried to say anything about Barrett that hasn't been said. I wrestled with whether it was worth running through the history of Syd Barrett all over again, or just writing a review that assumed you knew who he was. But it seems like "part of the format": especially when you have 400-600 words for a review, it's nice to introduce the artist in case you have a reader who's unfamiliar with him. It also seemed relevant, since the rampant mythologizing of Barrett is the only reason that they keep digging up everything they can find from his limited catalog.

It's defensive to respond to criticism of a review, but you bring up some interesting points. What do you think of the album?

More later, I'd love to discuss this as it's one of my favorite subjects, I've got a busy day but will be back

My ultimate complaint being that spending too much meta-time on dismissing phantoms ("the Barrett-worshippers who romanticize his illness") ultimate detracts from evaluation of his work, which body of work I think is wonderful & worthy of non-hook-based evaluation i.e. the "there are two views of Syd Barrett" spiel that begins the review: both of these "two views" are maybe what people have the first time they think about the story, but shortly thereafter, genuine engagement begins, at which point neither first-view is of much use.

(Like my use of medical terms?)

I can!

Have you seen Nick Mason lately?

Anyhow, Last year, there was a book published of Mick Rock?'s pics signed in a limited edition by "Barrett" himself.

I've seen Kate Bush in Savacentre in Calcot several times too!

[nice one Mark, we've managed to get back on topic and with a bit of luck no-one will ever notice that we strayed from it ever so slightly for a moment there!]

OK, this one will do:

Last, but certainly not least he served as Executive Producer on the new Syd Barrett compilation, not so cleverly titled, "An Introduction to Syd Barrett." Which will mix Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd and solo material, some of it remixed. Sadly, "Vegetable Man" nor "Scream Thy Last Scream" will be included, another missed opportunity. Why not put out these songs officially and give the fans the best quality possible and make a couple of quid in the process, instead of forcing us to continue to listen to sub-standard bootlegs? It would be a win-win for all involved. The big draw of the package isn't even on the disc it's a free bonus download of "Rhamadan,"a 20 minute previously unreleased instrumental. Since it's a download the sound quality won't be what it should. As obsessive as David is about sound this is a very odd choice. A bonus disc on the first pressing would have been a better way to get it out there, maybe even including "Vegetable Man" and "Scream Thy Last Scream". Now that would have been a great.

David Who?

Gilmore.

Was listening to the "introduction to" this morning, I still think "Rhamadan" sounds (and *is*) great.

Was playing The Madcap Laughs while cleaning up this weekend and was reminded of this great line: "She and I are in love ...we've agreed."

The drumming on 'No Good Trying' is fucking nuts... I imagine trying to play along with Syd must have been very difficult. The abrupt changes in the song are navigated very well. Robert Wyatt on that one, wasn't it?

All of Soft Machine, yes.

LOL yeah there's not like four bars where he's not drum rolling all over the place.

i once read an interview with robert talking about that session and he said syd wasn't difficult to work with at all! well his chops were certainly better than nick mason's :)

by the way i know those mojo cover cds, well, they largely deserve their reputations, but there is some genuinely good stuff on the madcap laughs one... j mascis tears it up on "no good trying"...

Just noticed this revive. So weird, I've had a really jaunty and terrible and inappropriate Wayne Newton-esque Las Vegas nightclub arrangement of 'Late Night' running through my head all day.

Inside me I feel!
(brassy horn flourish)
Alone and unreal, yeah!
(BWAAAAAAAAH-BA-dum-bum)

My brain, there's something wrong with it.

It's amazing that the Soft Machine guys were overdubbed onto "No Good Trying" and "Love You." Apart from the weird metric changes, they never sound like they get off beat to me. Syd must have had a good sense of tempo!

Playing to a prerecorded vocal/acoustic guitar track would be difficult under any circumstances, this idea that poor old Syd had lost it and couldn't keep normal time any more seems unfair on Syd. Ditto those tracks on "Opel" where he's actually having to read the words off bits of paper and play at the same time, because he's the songs are new and unrehearsed. Also some of those songs have odd time signatures and change because that's how they were written, they're supposed to be like that.

Yeah, but if you compare the released "Love you" with the unadorned takes recorded on the same day, the others didn't have the odd timings, well not as much.

arbitrarily changing the rhythm of the song so the rest of the band can't follow is a dick move and probably sufficient justification for kicking one out of the band but is not prima facie evidence of insanity

at the same time being a dick doesn't rule out also being insane

i'm not sure how i feel about waters/gilmour's production on that first record. i'd be pissed if my producers put out a record with as many false starts and bum notes as side two of that record has (looking at you "if it's in you"), but i still love it unreservedly.

The band played along to the already recorded take.

I have an image of someone holding count cards up:6! 2! 4! 11! 2! 2!

i'm not sure how i feel about waters/gilmour's production on that first record.

Same. In a way, I appreciate the honesty of those recordings, but on the other hand it feels like a bit of a dick move when compared to the non-Waters/Gilmour productions on the LP.

The solo guitar songs are so abstract that it’s hard to imagine some kind of arrangement for them. There has been some speculation that Syd might have heard one or both of the Pip Proud albums, which could conceivably explain the evolution from “See Emily Play” to “If It’s in You.”

They aren't really that abstract. "Octopus" is one of his most complex songs and that has a perfectly good arrangement and accompaniment.

That’s true. They kind of work nicely as folk songs, though.

But I do think some of them are extremely abstract! Meter all over the place.

Not really abstract though, just put together quite unusually - and ingeniously. He was doing much the same in Pink Floyd, something like "The Scarecrow" is really not that different from his solo stuff.

... the fact that the band choose not to try and play along with it beyond some clip clopping percussion and wandering keyboards may well be instructive.

Well...“The Scarecrow” is mostly 3/4. I’ll have to see if I can count it when I get a chance, but “Feel,” for example, seems more irregular.

It seems to me that Syd was just tailoring the solo songs with a lot of cut bars to fit what he was singing.

There has been some speculation that Syd might have heard one or both of the Pip Proud albums, which could conceivably explain the evolution from “See Emily Play” to “If It’s in You.”

seriously curious if that speculation exists outside of byron coley's imagination?

Man, it is impossible to hear where the downbeat is between the verses on Scarecrow. Seems like even Richard Wright doesn't know.

"Feel" - forget it...

Jennifer Gentle did a righteous arrangement for "If It's in You," by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHzjm_xPwo

nlt, I think it's an interesting proposition. Have you heard Pip?

oh yeah, i probably play his stuff more than i listen to barrett these days. i mean it's a possibility and as you say it would be interesting if it were the case... but i dunno!

Well...“The Scarecrow” is mostly 3/4. I’ll have to see if I can count it when I get a chance, but “Feel,” for example, seems more irregular.

― timellison, Sunday, 2 September 2018 17:51 (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Mostly, yes. But there are bits where it goes into 2/4 and back, and where the 'chorus' is stretched over 8 bars instead of four, and so on..

And it varies. There’s only one extra beat in the first verse, two in the second and third verses.

I was trying to recall if there was a cover of Octopus that I knew of to see how the band/artist might have dealt with the twists and turns, then I remembered this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZmvP0HmpDA

Plasticland did it on this, which I remember as one of the first rock tribute albums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Wildwood

Bought that as an import LP when it came out! I think Paul Roland's "Matilda Mother" was my favorite - he was really great (probably still is).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1YEo_eOsQc

First verse is slightly different and it all hangs together more in 3/4 between the verses on this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiINnIjTXAM

Some interesting stuff about what Barrett was up to fifty years ago in the summer of 1969 (scroll down for recent posts)!

https://www.facebook.com/MenOnTheBorder/

https://www.sydbarrettfilm.com/

Seeing that in a couple of weeks. Will have to brush up on his own albums, which I downloaded a few years ago.

https://bid.omegaauctions.co.uk/auction/lot/lot-293---pink-floydsyd-barrett-interest---the-original-painted-wooden-floorboards-from-madcap-laughs-album-cover/?lot=55480&so=0&st=&sto=0&au=167&ef=&et=&ic=False&sd=0&pp=48&pn=6&g=1

I'm redoing my floors atm, very tempting!

a song from under syd barrett's floorboards

*Please note that the painted floorboards are sold as artefacts only, without copyright. The copyright in relation to the artwork belongs to Syd Barrett Music Ltd.

Um, what does this mean? Can't make copies? Can't do merch?

Can't write songs while lying underneath the floorboards?

Unless you're Magazine.

Yet you can if you creep into cupboards, sleep in the hall.

xpost see, if Steve Lamacq was still doing his "song based on a news story" thing called "Todays national anthem", then... overwhelmingly...

Um, what does this mean? Can't make copies? Can't do merch?

it means just because you own the boards that were painted by Syd, you don't have any right to reproduce them or license their image to others, nor do you have any claim to the album artwork that contains a photo of said floorboards etc.

I posted this in another thread and wondered the same thing. I would be surprised if the concept of alternating blue and orange floorboards is creative enough to qualify for copyright protection in the first place (but I may be wrong, and I guess the disclaimer doesn't hurt).