I’ve recently reacquainted myself with some Floyd music. Like a long lost lover, I’ve been awash in the sonic familiarity of the Floyd’s music as of late.
I have a question. Is there anyone that likes Pink Floyd’s earlier stuff with Syd Barret more than their later stuff without him?
Honestly, I think a lot of the Barret-inspired music can border on unlistenable. Some of the stuff, like “Careful With That Axe, Eugene”, “One Of These Days…” and other songs definetely foreshadow the type of band the Floyd were turning into.
But some of Syd’s stuff, like “Vegetable Man”, Scream Thy Last Scream" are just terrible to me.
I don’t see how anyone could like that stuff better or even equal to the material on “Dark Side Of The Moon” and everything that came after.
Is it just me? Are there more Syd tunes that I need to check out?
As I’m also re-reading the book “Saucerful Of Secrets”, I’m trying to juxtapose all the glowing commentary about what a genius Syd was, etc against actually listening to some of the music, and frankly, I just can’t agree with the book’s conclusion. Other than that Syd took a lot of LSD, of course.
But Vegetable Man and Scream Thy Last Scream were not released on a studio album. It would be like judging Epic Era Floyd from the Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking, which Roger wanted to do as a Floyd album but they did The Wall instead.
That said, while I like them both, I do like Epic Era Floyd more than Syd Era, but Syd beats out Post-Syd/Pre Darkside and Post-breakup Floyd.
I think their Syd Barrett stuff, while good, was not as good as what they started doing just after he left. It’s on the par with the weaker Roger Waters material like Dark Side of the Moon. Good, but not great.
Well, I like the Syd stuff, although it’s a long time since I’ve listened to any. Dear me, must get a working record player one day. However, we might be looking at it from different angles - I mainly like the whimsical- silliness-albeit-with-serious-twinges of some of his stuff. Nothing like later Pink Floyd of course. I think you are taking a more serious and intellecutal view of it than I.
Bikes! Mouse called Gerald! Gnomes! And the harrowing tale of the Effervescing Elephant! How can you not like? Yeah, very very not later Pink Floyd.
In fact, I was once buying either a very early Floyd or perhaps a solo Syd record in a second-hand place and the nice shopkeeper man , seeing as the other thing I was buying was very mainstream and of the moment, was at pains to point out to me that I would find this one VERY different if I was expecting Pink Floyd and perhaps I would not like it. Sort of sweet of him, really.
I think that if you’re looking at Syd-era Floyd through DSOTM-colored glasses, you might be looking for a sort of sweeping classicism that wasn’t necessarily what was going on at the time of Syd-era Floyd. And they were still young, didn’t have David Gilmour, etc.
Someone who sees the White Album or Sgt. Peppers as the greatest Beatles albums might look at Meet The Beatles the same way.
I went through the exact process with the same book. Syd left the group when I was 14, before I became interested in Floyd, so I really wasn’t familiar with his music. I think Meddle was the first album I heard. A couple of years ago I read Saucerful of Secrets, and was moved by the book’s descriptions of Syd’s music to give it a listen. I was really disappointed.
You’re probably right, but what I’m not totally getting is all the accolades that were thrown around in reference to Syd at the time he was “at the height of his powers”. I just don’t get it.
Those songs are not from the Syd Barrett era, which basically lasted for only one album (plus a couple of leftovers on the second album).
I’ve always said that there was Syd’s Floyd, and later Roger’s Floyd, and finally David’s Floyd; but my own favorite material has always been the stuff they did post-Syd but pre-Dark Side, when they were Floyd’s Floyd–a band of equals.
Interesting. Dark Side Of The Moon is almost universally accepted as their pinnacle achievement, although I’m partial to the paranoia of The Wall, myself.
Depends on what you compare it to. Among music in general of the time, it’s among many good albums. Among Pink Floyd, it’s definitely one of their less interesting efforts.
I bought Dark Side the week is was released. My first thought after listening to it was, “Well, Pink Floyd has sold out and gone commercial.” But it is no where near their best music (both Meddle and Wish You Were Here are far superior, and Atom Heart Mother and Ummagumma are also greater albums. Dark Side is about the same level as The Division Bell, though less musically interesting. It’s sort of “Pink Floyd for Dummies.” (The Wall is marginally better, but still not their best work by any means.
As no one has answered this question – the first two Floyd singles, “Arnold Layne” and “See Emily Play,” are probably his strongest pop tunes. I like “Lucifer Sam,” too. Most of his other songs – “Bike,” “Apples and Oranges,” “Jugband Blues,” and both of his solo records – are kind of the sound of a mind coming apart and it’s a little disconcerting. He could write great melodies and has flashes of odd humor but most of his songs tend to be trapped in the loop of their own eccentricity. Of his solo stuff, try “Baby Lemonade” or “Octopus” – catchy, odd tunes that can’t quite seem to find their way.
As far as holding Syd above all else, the people who love, say, Daniel Johnston or Alexander Spence’s Oar or Wild Man Fischer are probably not mostly the same people who bought millions of copies of Dark Side of the Moon.
I agree, if you want light psychedelia that’s disconcerting, thought provoking, yet harmless at the same time, you can’t go wrong with those, plus [del]let’s roll another one[/del] Candy and a Currant Bun. (Jugband Blues isn’t exactly harmless).
I absolutely love the Piper at the Gates of Dawn album, and–at least according to allmusic.com–nearly every track was written by Barrett at least in part, with most written by him entirely. As others have stated, it’s very different stylistically than the post-Barrett albums, but for my money no less brilliant.
Some of my faves on that album from the ones attributed solely to Barrett:
[ul]
[li]Matilda Mother[/li][li]Scarecrow[/li][li]Lucifer Sam[/li][li]Chapter 24[/li][/ul]
Likewise, See Emily Play is among my very favorite songs of theirs.
His songwriting is quite pop-based, using simple structures and melodies, and yet doesn’t really sound like anything else going on at the time (especially since it’s offset by the darker sounds and unusual arrangements that the rest of the band brings to the material).
As Ichbin Dubist notes, there is a sense of a mind coming apart in much of his songwriting. Perhaps that’s part of the appeal for me…? I get the same sense from the aforementioned Oar by Skip Spence, and it’s the quirky departures from otherwise straightforward pop songwriting that highlight the brilliance. I can totally get why it’s off-putting to many fans of Floyd’s later work… there’s no particular reason why someone who likes one era should be interested in the others.
For my part, I like it all–for different reasons–right up until The Wall (which always seemed kinda lacking, songwriting-wise).
I’m another who thinks “Lucifer Sam” kicks ass. I also like “Matilda Mother”, “Astronomy Domine”, and “Scarecrow”… another favorite of mine is “Flaming”.
But it’s understandable that a lot of people would be left cold by this stuff. It’s very quirky, odd, and I guess dated. People who like epic era Floyd would probably not have too much trouble grasping “Lucifer Sam”, “Matilda Mother” and “Astronomy Domine”, but “Scarecrow” and “Flaming” are another thing entirely. Very fey British psychedelia.
I don’t know that I like Syd-era Floyd better than what came after. They’re just different. The Syd stuff was groundbreaking, experimental, and uneven. Same, perhaps, could be said for the several albums that came after. Then they began to settle into an increasingly comfortable groove.
It took me a while, but I actually found a song on Piper that I actively LIKE, as opposed to merely appreciating from a musical historical perspective: Flaming
However, we might be looking at it from different angles - I mainly like the whimsical- silliness-albeit-with-serious-twinges of some of his stuff. Nothing like later Pink Floyd of course. I think you are taking a more serious and intellecutal view of it than I. 
