The fall of Pink Floyd

Not sure whether it is possible to extrapolate Syd at his creative best in any predictable direction so specualtion is wild and limited only by our capacity to appreciate Syd for what he was and what he did. A copy of Terrapin (the Barrett Appreciation Society fanzine) from the early 70s reprinted an article by Fred Frith (Henry Cow) on the genius of Syd's guitar playing, so even just a few years after his disappearance from the public eye he had been elevated to cult status, and that has continued to this day.

I think what we can extrapolate is the invention, the heart of the matter, the idiosyncratic nature of a kind of genius that knew no bounds. I say this not as a Syd fan, but I see it as a fact. Public perception (as with public taste) has no relevance whatsoever here, many commercially-successful bands and writers will not be considered worth a light in future years. Let’s face it, the record-buying public are dumb en masse, as are the book-buying public, etc etc. What sells sells, art is forever.

I find it difficult to accept that the four remaining members of Floyd could sustain a career of the magnitude they did by riding on the shirt-tails of the master. There are no other examples of that within the music industry - take away the main creative force and the remainder can probably carry-on for one mediocre album before collapsing in disarray. Yet Floyd went from strength to strength, from Saucer to Ummagumma to Atom Heart Mother to Meddle to Dark Side Of The Moon to Wish You Were Here. WYWH is about Barrett and inspired by him, but there is nothing of Barrett in there, in fact I would go as far as to say there is nothing of Barrett in any of the post-Barrett albums aside from an attitude and approach.

Of course it’s possible to ‘sustain a career of the magnitude they did’ , whatever the quality or lack of, that’s the nature of success, it’s not based on excellence, but on popularity, and lack of discrimination on the part of the public.

On the other hand, I don’t want to be put into a position where it looks like I’m against post-Syd Pink Floyd, I’m not. I like what they do, but it definitely pales into comparison with what might have been, and it’s without doubt a parody of Syd himself. You give yourself a clue to this when you say that Syd is in the post-Barrett albums in ‘attitude and approach’. That sounds like confirmation to me.

Hmm, I think 1-2-3 have been raised several levels above their ability - if they had that artistic spark then it would have carried over into Clouds, and it doesn't. I've listened to their version of America very closely and believe it to be a construction - even if you accept the story that they heard a demo cut of the Simon & Garfunkle song a whole year before it was released, the audience screaming at the beginning is too "Beatlemania", too hysterical and too "big" to ever have fitted into the Wardor Street Marquee; the reverb on the recording is also too "big" for the Marquee and the recording of each instrument is too separated to have been recorded in one live take on a 4-track; also the drums and overheads (cymbols) are too far back in the mix for a live recording in a small club (which is what Wardor Street was at that time). It may be genuine, but the technical inconsistences bother me - I sugest that if it was recorded at the Marquee, then it was in the upstairs studio, not in the club itself, however I suspect it may have been recorded much later, feasibly as Clouds and possibly after the Yes version. I think 1-2-3's failure to make it big was simply down to lack of creative artistic ability, that their 1967 set incuded so many covers by (relatively) unknown artists (S&G and David Bowie were not household names at that time) suggests to me they may have been technically compitent, but not artistically capable. I also find it suspicious that there is little documentation of their headline residency at the Marquee at this time - they played there, that is certain, but little actual evidence exists of them before Clouds.

Yes released their version of America four years later - any link to 1-2-3 is tenuous - to have heard a band play a song live and then replicate that in a studio four years later - even with Yes's technical talent that is highly unlikely.

Yes had recorded two non-symphonic albums prior to that that - if they were apeing 1-2-3, then they would have done it in 1968-69, not 1971-72. Inspired by - maybe; Copied - no.

I don’t really want to argue the toss too much about 1-2-3 in this discussion, given that this is meant to be about Pink Floyd, and it sounds like you have an axe to grind on that subject. I just threw in that comment because it’s clear to me (and to history) where Yes came from, I was trying to draw a comparison about pre and post Barrett Floyd and 1-2-3/Yes. I have to disagree about ‘little actual evidence’ of 1-2-3, on the contrary, loads of history exists about all that. I can’t comment on the tape, I’m not qualified and you sound like you are, but as regards provenance, I do know that 1-2-3 played America at the Marquee in 1967 and Yes did it in 1971 with suspiciously similar passages. Inspired is fine, but it was the concept of the band that was copied, though Yes weren’t the only ones by any means. Bowie and others have commented on all that already, so perhaps this needs another forum discussion altogether! And I do like Yes by the way, just credit where credit's due. Ironic that prog archives are just about the last place on the web to give that credit, when the debt they owe is more than most. Nuff said.

Bowie has one saving grace - his ability to create melody. He may borrow ideas and build on them, but the melody and musical structures he uses are unique and original. Even when he is taking on Krautrock, Philly Soul or Jungle his feel for melody and composition are far inexcess of whatever was being done in those genres at the time. That is the mark of a truely progressive artist - to take disparate ideas and fuse them into something new and original. Fame is not a pastiche, Subterraneans is not a parody, Little Wonder is not a lampoon - each is a unique perspective from the view of an Outsider looking in, just as all Prog artists have done with Jazz, Classical and Eastern music - yet he did it with contemporary music and that makes him an impersonator - no, I don't believe it does.

I like Bowie and what he does a lot, but I have to disagree about what he brings to the borrowings. The voices he hears in his head as he sings belong to someone else, and that decides what happens in the orbit of the voice. It’s clearly craftwork and creativity, but it isn’t original or unique in any way, and definitely not in excess of where it came from. He is a consummate performer and studio artist, but he is an actor primarily before anything else.

I enjoyed your comment about Michaelangelo, but my comment about Van Gogh wasn’t related to Syd himself, it was a reference to the difficulty in separating artistic quality from commercial success. Time will tell.