Syd Barrett: Real Genius or Real Hype?

Syd Barrett, the Mad Cap. Was he truly a genius on the level of a McCartney or Lennon? A musical visionary? Or an over celebrated artist caught up in the cult of personality, due to the nature of his artistic demise? Or somewhere in the middle?

Edited by SteveG - August 04 2015 at 16:54

Somewhere in between for me....though I like many of the songs he wrote he's not that fantastic in my book and really wasn't much of a guitar player imho.

There are some songs I like from him, and last time I gave Piper a listen I enjoyed it more than I remembered enjoying it before, but still I would think he is more a legend because of his madness. I think Gilmour was much more talented, and I don't think Floyd would have reached the heights they did with Syd instead.

Dellinger wrote: I think Gilmour was much more talented, and I don't think Floyd would have reached the heights they did with Syd instead.

Exactly my thoughts.

To me, Syd was a gifted artist with a fragile mind. He is not a 'genius' per se, though highly creative and unique.
I enjoy most of his stuff, though some moments really scream at you about the dangers of LSD. I guess that qualifies as in-between. And most of us hear about his alleged, 'crazy' behaviour, but never his 'regular' day-to-day life. No-one cares whether he made coffee for his mother or tried to carry on as a 'regular Joe', only that he was a 'Burnt out Rock Legend'.

I enjoy the man's musical output of course, but I'm uncomfortable with the cult of personality around Barrett considering how much he shunned publicity. According to the biography of him A Very Irregular Head by Rob Chapman, the mental breakdown that caused Barrett to leave PF was caused as much by touring stress and discomfort with being famous as by his mental health and substance abuse issues.

To me Floyd didn't really come together until Meddle so I'm not a huge fan of his but some interesting work on the first Floyd record.  Never listened to his solo stuff.

Komandant Shamal wrote: Dellinger wrote: I think Gilmour was much more talented, and I don't think Floyd would have reached the heights they did with Syd instead. Exactly my thoughts.

I concur with this.  With Syd in the band, Pink Floyd would never have had even a chance to become the prog "dinosaur" they became.  There simply was no way going on when his problems went out of hand.  There were just two options for Pink Floyd at that point: 1. Fire Barrett.  2. Fold it.  We would have missed a lot of great music if they had chosen option 2.

Syd Barrett had his streaks of genius, but overall, David Gilmour was the better musician.  No contest.

I've said before - contraversially perhaps - that the term 'genius' is bandered around too generously with regard to any brand of non classical music artist.

Barrett wasn't a genius IMO. He was a unique talent, and a very entertaining character nonetheless, but for me Floyd were a far better and more interesting band without him.

It's probably fair to say that he was an 'important' figure in rock music at the time, and I would have liked to have been around to experience the band at that stage of their career, but based on Piper I don't think they would have appealed to me quite as much as say The Doors or Hendrix at the time. Btw, I don't consider Jim Morrison to have been a genius either.

Anyone think there are parallels between Syd and Brian Jones in terms of the band relationships?

And what effect would Jones have had on the 70s Stones had he lived and decided he wanted to continue to contribute more regularly to their albums?