Did Floyd make the right decision about Barrett?

The notion they just "forgot" to pick him up on the way to a gig and that signalled his exit is perhaps partly true but maybe it is partly apocryphal too. There were several occasions before then where he was not on stage for a gig, most notably during the (pre-Gilmour) UK tour with Hendrix, Amen Corner, The Nice and The Move where Davy O'List filled in for the "indisposed" Barrett. The idea of recruiting another guitarist was to allow Barrett to remain in the band in his fragile and unpredictable state and Barrett was still in the band after they chose not to pick him up on the way to Southampton, but as a studio member rather than a gigging member. Also, they had chosen Gilmour because he was known to and respected by Barrett to make it easier for him to remain in the band. To me this doesn't seem as callous as it does to others.

From the documented accounts of Barrett's behaviour on stage, in the studio and during their American tour it is conceivable that this period was as hard for Barrett as it was for the other members of the band. It seems that he was as much frustrated that they didn't grasp what he was doing as much as they were frustrated by what he was doing. Such as this quote from Jerry Shirley (drummer): 

Again, we may never know the whole truth - we don't actually know for certain whether Barrett was kicked out or chose to leave or whether it was suggested that he should go. That Jenner and King went with Barrett and not Floyd suggests that they at least saw a future for Syd and not for Floyd after the break-up. That Waters, Gilmour and Wright were involved in the production of his two solo albums suggests that they wanted to see him succeed as a solo artist... I don't believe they did this out of regret or remorse for "forcing" him out of his own band.

 

Very true Steve.....I enjoy reading all the commentary and regardless of who is posting stuff, I am not taking it as the gospel. It's not like someone here is doing research to write a book about Syd, simply pub talk

 

My thought precisely.

 

 

 The term popular music belongs to any of a number of musical genres "having wide appeal"^[1][2] and typically distributed to large audiences through the music industry. It stands in contrast to both art music^[3][4][5] and traditional music, which are typically disseminated academically or orally to smaller, local audiences.^[3][4][5] The original application of the term is to music of the 1880s Tin Pan Alley period in the United States.^[1] Although popular music sometimes is known as "pop music", the two terms are not interchangeable^{[citation needed]}. Popular music is a generic term for music of all ages that appeals to popular tastes,^[6] whereas pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre.^{[citation needed]}

 

As Barrett's music, and Floyd's for that matter, was professionally produced, packaged and marketed to obtain maximum sales, I think it better fits this definition:

 

 According to Simon Frith pop music is produced "as a matter of enterprise not art", is "designed to appeal to everyone" and "doesn't come from any particular place or mark off any particular taste". It is "not driven by any significant ambition except profit and commercial reward ... and, in musical terms, it is essentially conservative". It is, "provided from on high (by record companies, radio programmers and concert promoters) rather than being made from below ... Pop is not a do-it-yourself music but is professionally produced and packaged".^[14]

 

 

Dueling pistols at dawn. I'll even let you shoot first.