Talk:Syd Barrett

Barbican Centre tribute

While I think the Barbican Centre concert is important to note in this entry, I'm not sure it belongs in Influences, tacked on after his death or linked to as its own entry. Comments? MartinSFSA 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this to Death, although it leaves that section bulging. It fits there less badly than in Influences, unless anyone wants to start a dedicated tributes section? MartinSFSA 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

X Files Episode

"Lord of the Flies" - Syd is pretty central to this episode, not sure if it's entirely relevant to the page, but I can't think of any other references to SB in popular culture other than this. Might be worth mentioning? I'd do it myself, but i'm not entireley sure what counts as ettiqutte on wiki so didn't want to spoil the page.

Stars

I have not seen the Jack Monck interview mentioned in this section, but I did sound for the band at those last couple of shows at the Corn Exchange. The first one, on the Thursday, opening for the MC5, was indeed a disaster - not through any fault of the band particularly, but because they had been set up too far apart on the stage and their were no monitors on the MC5's PA system - which, in fact, consisted of one big amp with a volume knob. I had to run back and forth between front and back stage continuously adjusting to try to get it as loud as possible. The band had only played small intimate venues beforehand and was not prepared for this. The mood of the band was ok after the show - you can't win them all kind of thing. Two days later they opened for Nektar and it was a whole different deal. Nektar had two WEM Audiomasters - 10 channels with monitors, and we'd learnt our lesson and put the band closer together. It was a great show, well received. Everyone happy. Which made it all the more a bit of a shock when the Roy Hollingworth review of the Thursday show appeared. The review, as I recall it, did not talk particularly much about Stars, but went on about how Roy, a professional scenester, felt totally alienated from the young crowd at the show. He was in a weird mood and predisposed to write unfavorably. I later was able to listen to a cassette of the Nektar show and confirm in my mind that it was good. Unfortunately neither that tape, nor any others, appear to have survived. For those of you that wonder what Stars was about I can tell you that it was a basically a free jazz trio, with Monck & Alder kicking along lightfooted rhythms that gave Syd plenty of room to improvise freely. Psychedelic skiffle. The material was from his solo and Pink Floyd. All three were definitely enjoying playing so much that they were perhaps oblivious to the public interest and Syd's fragile state. Which came back to bite them. Wwwhatsup 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Last Minute Put-Together Boogie Band were recorded at the Cambridge Corn Exchange on 27/1/1972. They featured Bruce Payne (vocals & guitar), Jack Monck (bass), Twink (drums), Fred Frith (guitar) and Syd Barrett (guitar). See FraKcman's blog. Drwhawkfan 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The first time Syd played with the LMPTBB was at a small Kings College show when they played with Eddie Guitar Burns. Syd jammed on one song. I believe these two shows were just about it for the LMPTBB. I wasn't present at either show altho I was sharing a house with Twink and Payne at the time. I was away for some reason. I've never heard those audio samples before.Payne was a somewhat vain and very career oriented american who went on to join Steamhammer. He wasn't very compatible with Syd, and when Twink showed more interest in Syd, Bruce got pissed off and moved out and that was the end of the LMPTBB. Syd, Jack and Twink would jam in the back room of Steve Brink's What's In A Name boutique next door, which was actually underneath my room and I used to hear them while reading or crashed or whatever. Having missed the earlier shows I had no idea who Syd was and had already got quite well acquainted over cups of tea before I found out. There never was, to my knowledge, a band called the Syd Barrett All Stars. Brink was the promoter of the Corn Exchange shows. I trust this will help someone make a more accurate summary of this phase of Syd's life.Wwwhatsup 05:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

For the record I agree with the anonymous editor who repeatedly removes the United Kingdom's added by Parsnip. Parsnip keeps reverting the edit, in the latest instance giving the reason: not superflous. England has not been a country in hundreds of years. However the England article commences by saying England (pronounced IPA: /ˈɪŋglənd/) (Old English: Englaland, Middle English: Engelond) is the largest and most populous constituent country[1][2] of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.. I believe the UK qualification to be superfluous and unnecessary clutter. Wwwhatsup 04:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not superflous or unnecessary clutter. Leaving it off creates the incorrect implication that England is an independent country. It would be like saying Vladimir Putin was born in Leningrad, Russian SFSR, and leaving off Soviet Union. It's incomplete and it's incorrect. Nobody of consequence 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in your example I would say that just Leningrad would be sufficient, since there is no ambiguity, and anyone needing further info can follow the link. In the case of Cambridge, there are many Cambridges, but only one Cambridge, England. There are no other Englands that I know of outside of the UK. Wwwhatsup 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge, England is absolutely acceptable in Wikipedia, I haven't seen any other instances where England needs to be qualified as being part of the UK (or EU, for that matter) - there's no point, England is a country that can't be confused with any other. Drwhawkfan 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

England is a constituent country, which is effectively only a part of a sovreign nation. I think it is best to rotate between using England/England and United Kingdom/British throughout the article. This is both comprimise and balance. I really wouldn't like to see this article destroyed by edit wars with have affected other articles. I am from the UK (England) and realise that the seperate terms stir up much emotion in people, but let's be mature as we can as the Syd article is one of the most well-written and interesting musician articles on Wikipedia, I feel. TomGreen 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter what our POV is, if the standard being used is "The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the administrative centre of the county of Cambridgeshire.", then we must accept this and adopt it, however begrudging we may feel. There are two very good reasons for this: 1. It ensures consistency thoughout Wikipedia, and 2. Removes any reason for a petty edit war. Drwhawkfan 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Solo live recordings

The "Solo live recordings" were actually recordings made for the BBC. They were pre-recorded in the studio, allowing for multiple takes and overdubs (and there are lots of overdubs on these recordings) and can in no way be construed as being "live". Also, is the Pink Floyd years (1965–1968) section really necessary, surely it's mainly covered in the Pink Floyd article? And all of those scurrilous "Mental state" stories, do we really want to perpetuate such hearsay? Drwhawkfan 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Royalties from early works

I found this hard to follow on a first reading. Overall, I think this article does not need much word to regain GA status, and given the subject, it should deserve FA status. I've put it on my "todo" list, so if you feel like pitching in, that would be fine. Harry Chrimble. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ayers/Barrett axis?

I read an interview with Nick Mason in (Brain Damage?) where he was prompted about Kevin Ayers' identity as "Syd's friend." He responded that he knew who Ayers was but that he wasn't Syd's friend. Does anyone have any better information? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever read anywhere that Ayers and Barrett were close friends. It's certainly possible they were, but since there's no citable evidence to support it (other than their musical collaboration), I guess it's best to eliminate OR. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"obscure" v. "obtuse"

I watched this with some amusement. "Obtuse" is not being used here to mean "stupid", but "off the wall". It seems to me that "obscure" would be equally valid, since it's clear from that anecdote that Syd was playing a prank on the rest of the band, which is somewhat predicated by the title of the song. To avoid any further argument, I propose "idiosyncratic" as a more neutral alternative. Any comments? We really should be concentrating on getting this article back to GA status. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I've made the suggested change. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it is more likely the original editor meant obscure rather than idiosyncratic (because obtuse has recently been often confused with obscure by certain pop music fans who are possibly not as well read as they might be), idiosyncratic, or perhaps a stronger term such as eccentric, may be better. I'm fine with idiosyncratic though. Thanks for the suggestion.

For the record:

From the Heinemann English Dictionary, p.4: "Do not confuse abstruse with obtuse: abstruse means 'difficult to understand' (an abstruse academic debate), whereas obtuse means 'slow to understand' (an obtuse student).

From the Internet (http://jaiarjun.blogspot.com/2006/05/picking-nits.html): "I’m gobsmacked by how often the word 'obtuse' is misused, and misused with great flamboyance. 'Obtuse', people, means nothing more complicated or intense than 'a lack of intelligence or sensitivity'. So stop referring to the work of your favourite writers or poets (or your own work :for that matter) as obtuse. You’re probably thinking of something midway between 'obscure' and 'abstruse' (both of which are slightly more dashing words and indicate something that’s enigmatic or difficult to understand, which is the meaning you’re likely looking for). When you preen and tell me that you are stimulated by 'obtuse writing', I begin to suspect that maybe you really are."

Note, please, that Merriam-Webster purports to be purely "descriptive" (and seems to me to be getting more aggressively anti-"prescriptive" all the time). This means that it lists all the ways it discovers a word to be used and makes no judgement about whether the usage is proper. It follows that Merriam-Webster cannot be used as a source with which to cite proper usage. TheScotch (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC ban for Arnold Layne?

Did the BBC actually ban "Arnold Layne" from airplay, or is this an urban myth of sorts? The Arnold Layne article states only that the off-shore commercial station Radio London banned it, and at least one website quotes Roger Waters as saying "In fact, it's only Radio London that have banned the record. The BBC and everybody else plays it." Is this just a case of people confusing the now-defunct Radio London with the BBC London station (what is now BBC London 94.9) and the various national BBC stations that are broadcast from London? 217.155.20.163 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was Radio London NOT the BBC. I've changed it. The Roger Waters interview which you mention appears in "Pink Floyd - A Visual Documentary by Miles" (1980) NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Longer lead needed

I've twice tagged this article and asked several times for an expanded lead section which is in accordance with WP:Lead. This article is 44k long and I have suggested aiming for a lead of 4 paragraphs.

I know some other leads are much shorter, but they cover much shorter articles. For example, Mick Jagger has one paragraph as a lead, but the article only 16k long. Longer articles need longer leads, as WP:Lead explains.

I only persist in making this request because I can't see how the article could possibly become a GA without a much expanded lead section. Johnfos (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining in discussion, Johnfos. I agree with your arguments. To bring the article to GA status, the lead should be expanded to look more like other Good Articles about musicians, such as Paul McCartney and Kurt Cobain.

(Also, I was the one who renominated the article for GA status. I hadn't read or edited the article before, but I was uncharacteristically impressed with it. It answered all my questions, and all the claims made appeared to be well sourced and well organized. I looked at the history and I was further impressed by how the article has been steadily improved since it lost GA status). I'll try and expand the lead myself, but as I've yet to write a proper fullsized lead section, it may take me awhile (on the order of days). I'd be overjoyed if someone beat me to it. -Verdatum (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Links

Look at this: to see the dead or broken links in this article.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

Needs a lot more referencing. Here's some stuff to look at specifically...

• The lead needs expansion per above. You should mention every section in the article, at least.
• "thirty years.His" - need space after full stop
• "including a future Prime Minister of Japan." - no harm in saying his name
• ", now known as Hills Road Sixth Form College" - not really relevent
• First para of Pink Floyd years (1964–1968) section unsourced
  • Same with 3rd para
• "(despite a ban by the BBC)" - why? Also would probably work better out of brackets...
• "At that same time at Abbey Road the Beatles were recording Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in Studio 1 and the Pretty Things were recording S.F. Sorrow." - ref?
• "or not playing at all[8]." - ref should go after the full stop
• "to cover for Barrett as Barrett's" - Barrett's --> his to avoid repetition
• "the band elected not to pick Barrett up" - sourcing is a major problem in this article...
• Last para of the 1964-1968 section unsourced
• The Solo years (1968–1972) section has 1 ref in total
• "(Monck describes just how disastrous it was in a TV interview in 2001 for the BBC Omnibus series documentary 'Crazy Diamond')" - is this relevant?
• "NME produced a tribute" - NME goes in italics

I didn't end up reading the whole article, but it could do with copyediting after everything etc sourced. etc. Hope this helps, and leave me a note if you have questions/comments. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Barbican tribute Floyd split

Though Pink Floyd did appear at Syd's memorial concert, there was a notable absence in the finale, which everyone else returned to the stage for. Can anyone argue why this'd not be relevant to the entry?MartinSFSA (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'd like to request that folks be more careful about uploading images. The image that was in the infobox until a couple minutes ago was a copyvio. the person who has it on their Flickr acount was only 3 years old when that photo was taken, and I very much doubt Barrett had random 3 year olds in his flat in 1968. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Age

I want to know if there is any sources out there that say that Syd Barrett was born after November 27 1952.I am looking for people that were listed on wikipedia being born from 1941 to November 27 1952 that were really born after November 27 1952 (like wikipedia says Joe Schmo was born in 1948 but Joe Schmo was really born in 1954) is Syd Barrett at least 7 years younger than the age you listed him at??? And can i have some examples of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason69535554 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no such source known.MartinSFSA (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If Barrett had been born 11/27/52, he would've been only fourteen when Piper at the Gates of Dawn was released, which strikes me as extremely unlikely. You'll find two different James Brown birth dates being bandied about at the James Brown discussion page, however. TheScotch (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mysterious people

Was the inclusion of Syd in Category:Mysterious people a joke? He seriously doesn't conform to the criteria. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"just because a person is reclusive or hides his activities is not a reason to include him in this category" - so I'd say he doesn't belong. --Rodhullandemu 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume the inclusion was ill judged, on the flimsy criteria of his stage name--or just plain old trolling. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Official web site

This does appear to be authorized by his estate, as it's copyright to One Fifteen, Dave Gilmour's company. Does anyone have more on this? MartinSFSA (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I took it out because I couldn't get into the site earlier today, just got a time-out, and the link was added by an anon IP who has never edited here before. I have seen edits of sites that say "official website" and when you go to the site, there is no such claim on the site itself, so I was dubious. I'm trying again, and now I'm getting a page saying I can't get into the site because my computer doesn't have Flash enabled (which is true). I can get to Gilmour's site, and I see it doesn't have the usual "about us" / legal blurb link. The only copyright notice on Gilmour's site is for David Gilmour Music Ltd., no mention of One Fifteen. The "links" page on Gilmour's site has no mention of the Barrett site, and you would think it would, if they were maintained by the same person. I don't see a "contact us" page on Gilmour's site for questions. So, I don't know where to go from here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone has better info than a copyright notice on the site, it'll be fine without. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The person who inserted it has added it again (in 2 places this time), but under a different IP. I'll take it out and leave a message on the IP's talk page, but if it's a changing IP it might not get read. If the editor is reading this, please respond here and tell us about the site. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same IP all the time..Have no I idea why it has changed. Anyway, if you look at the first page of the website (sydbarrett.com), you'll find out, it is the official one - they say, it is. It's about his life, his work with Floyd and his art. There are some rare photos as well. And it has got it's official store attached to it. That's all I can say. PF's official site still hasn't got the link to it, but I hope, they'll do. Oh and some domain registration info here --62.168.170.155 (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 62.168.170.155, I've written to the site registrant for some context. Just because it says it's official isn't verification, although claiming it belongs to Dave Gilmour's management company is enough to get the people behind it in trouble if it's not. The reason your IP changes is because they vary over time.MartinSFSA (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If it is a fansite link, it may not qualify for inclusion unless there is specific information that is being referenced to enhance the article. (Hint: Surely you can find something already in the article that can use this website as a reference.) I also have a concern about the description: "celebrating Barrett's life and work" which reads like an advertisement, as well as WP:POV. See also WP:LINKSPAM and also WP:FANCRUFT. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

PS, if you have any connection with the people who set up that site, could you please let them know that not everyone has Flash enabled (it's a pain for users with older computers, it's just too resource-sapping), and therefore a site that blocks non-Flash users is a site that is not available to all. Some sites have an alternate non-Flash version, but an acceptable compromise is to put the basic info and navigation in regular html, and use Flash only where necessary, keeping in mind that the Flash portions won't be viewable by all. (Gilmour's site is an example of this method.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They've gotten back to me and I'm willing to call it on the site's behalf. Owned by Barrett's family, administered by Gilmour's management, proceeds to the Syd Barrett Trust. But I didn't pass on your complaints about Flash; that goes without saying! MartinSFSA (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. (And BTW, I've seen the site now, using a second computer.) I'm glad to see a less ad-like description, and has now been inserted just once. Do you think it might be better to avoid the word "official" (even though it's used on the website) since it's such a contentious word, over-used and quesitonable when it's about a person who is not living? "Syd Barrett webside created by his estate and David Gilmour's management" sounds better, and sums up what we've learned about it. Also, I don't think the Flash problem needs to be mentioned, and they might change that in future anyway. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The executors of an estate are officially empowered to act on behalf of that estate. Anything they do or produce, in that role, is by definition, official. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Later Years (1972–2006)

"In 1978, when the money ran out, he walked back to Cambridge to live in his mother's basement."

I've seen this sentence on several places on WWW and it does not ring true to me - reeks of writer's "license" and conjuring up some image of poor Syd/Roger as a (aspiring ?) reclusive hermit confined to a self-imposed hell after wearing his shoes out walking from London to Cambridge. Anybody know where the "story" came from or have better info? Is this the the origin of the story, which has propagated elsewhere, or is it the other way around?

First the idea of choosing to "walk" 60-odd miles, when there are other means of getting from London to Cambridge, seems like a nonsense; if he really didn't have a penny to his name for a train or bus, surely he would have "hitched". As for the "basement", I've seen pictures of his mother's house and in my experience such semi-detached English houses do not have a basement - in fact very few, if any, English houses have a basement. Unless someone has explicit evidence of the "walk" and the "basement", in the interest of accuracy and removal of over-dramatization, this should simply be changed to read that he went home to live with his mother in her house.Scunnerous (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Watkinson & Anderson (p. 125) have this: "The years of frivolous spending were coming to an end for Barrett. What had once seemed a bottomless pit of royalties ran dry and rising rents made it impossible for him to stay at Chelsea Cloisters. The following year, 1979, saw him back with his mother in Cambridge - a declared bankrupt"...

No "walking home" there, and no melodramatic "back to the basement" statement either - off the top of my head, I think he did live in a basement room (sorry, I don't have time to go through Watkinson to confirm it, but if he did, I'm sure it's in there). But this wasn't a basement containing a bag of cement and one light bulb - it was a normal bedroom (if I remember rightly per Watkinson, it was actually a rather well-appointed one)...

I agree this sentence as it reads currently evokes an unnecessary and misleading violin softly playing in the background... --DaveG12345 (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

I didnt know he could play piano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.49.40 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the infobox should be a summary of content also found in the article. The article says nothing about this. So feel free to challenge it or remove it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wall film

I have never heard the film attributed by Waters to being about Syd, merely the shaving incident. If there's any evidence to the contrary, please cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's partly about Syd (the drugs), but also (and even more) about Waters (the whole childhood and marriage scenes), plus Pink Floyd, Roy Harper (the groupie), Rick Wright (the grand piano) etc. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The scene where "Pink" destroys the hotel room, with the woman crouched in the corner, that is direct reference to Barrett and an incident with his girlfriend Lynsey. The overbearing mother, locking himself in hotel rooms, etc. were biographical to Barrett. Band interviews are very clear on this. CassiasMunch (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A casual observer might think that if Roger Waters had intended The Wall to be about Syd, he would have said so; however, he hasn't, so far as I'm aware. Although parallels might be drawn between incidents in Syd's life and events in the film, we cannot do that. If reliable sources have done so, we may cite them, but there is no particular reason to give them undue weight. All artistic works are open to interpretation, but WP is not a publisher of original thought; it is, if you like, a recycler of what already exists. If Roger Waters, or any other reliable source, has drawn parallels between Syd's life and The Wall, we may cite them. Until then, we may not. --Rodhullandemu 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole scene is, if we believe Schaffner, inspired by Roy Harper in 1975 (Knebworth concert). Schaffner also mentions the girlfriend episode but with no connection to The Wall if I remember right. Plus, Waters always has referred to his own mother (who had to compensate the missing father) and not Barrett's. Again, of course this album is heavily inspired by Barrett but not as directly as you might think.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)